Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BAXI PARTNERSHIP LIMITED TRUSTS BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited during the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of

any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them forthwith.

TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT OF RULES) BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [28th October] as relates to the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill be now considered.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them forthwith.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Fireworks

Mr. Bill O'Brien: How many incidents which involve fireworks have been reported to the police in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [94990]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Separate figures are not kept on firework incidents reported to the police. Most such incidents will be reported to the ambulance service in the first instance. In 1998, 831 people were reported as treated by hospitals for injuries caused by accidents with fireworks. That compares with 908 people in 1997, 1,233 in 1996 and 1,530 in 1995.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Obviously, the figures are pointing in the right direction, although 800-odd too many people were injured last year.
Let me say first that I am not anti-fireworks; I want people to enjoy them, but I am concerned at the number of injuries that they cause. Does my hon. Friend have any figures for incidents reported to the police involving fireworks thrown in the street? My concerns are heightened because of the millennium celebrations that will be taking place. The regulations on fireworks safety must be strengthened, and people must adhere to them. Will the Minister assure my constituents that those regulations will be observed?

Mrs. Roche: I am sure that the whole House would endorse the sentiments behind my hon. Friend's remarks. All fireworks intended for use by the public, whether made here or imported, must meet the requirements of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the Home Office takes very seriously any infringement of the regulations and criminal activities. Bonfire night should be enjoyed, but enjoyed peacefully and safely.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I do not know whether the Minister knows that I have a retail business in Swansea. We have been selling fireworks for many years, and it is not always easy to guess someone's age. Will the hon. Lady remind shopkeepers that they should never gamble when it comes to the sale of such

explosives? It is best to err on the side of caution and not to sell the fireworks. Will the hon. Lady also confirm that people who may be enticed into buying fireworks for others who are under age will be pursued if they do so? In general, safety should come first and—I know that this will not make me popular with other shopkeepers—people should buy their fireworks late so that they do not hang around in the house and possibly cause damage.

Mrs. Roche: I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I know about his business interests because of my previous experience at the Department of Trade and Industry. He has spoken a great deal of common sense. I would add that there are some very good public fireworks displays to which parents can take their children. Indeed, this Saturday there is a magnificent fireworks display at Alexandra palace, in my constituency, and I will be there with my family.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tories, led by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), talking out a private Member's fireworks Bill was an act of gross irresponsibility? If the Bill had been enacted, newspapers such as my local Bolton Evening News would not be calling today for increased safety and even a total ban on retail sales of fireworks.

Mrs. Roche: It is the duty of all Members of the House to consider each piece of legislation that comes before us. That was indeed an important measure; instead of seeking to talk out Bills, Members should seriously consider their implications. Many people will echo my hon. Friend's remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions — Avon and Somerset Police

Mr. David Heath: What was the change in the number of police officers in the Avon and Somerset constabulary between March 1996 and March 1999. [94991]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Between March 1996 and March 1999, the number of police officers in Avon and Somerset increased by 18, to 2,999. The chief constable and police authority can apply for a share of the Government's new crime-fighting fund to provide 5,000 extra police recruits over the next three years. We will publish detailed guidance on that shortly.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he know that, as long as 10 years ago, I went with the then chief constable to the then Home Secretary to argue for an extra 300 officers for Avon and Somerset, simply to bring us back to the point where we should have been? Does he accept that the change from limiting numbers to limiting cash has produced little benefit for police authorities? Can he give me an absolute assurance that the number of police officers available to police Somerset and the streets of Bristol at the end of this Parliament will be greater than in 1996?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman goes back 10 years. As he well knows, over the five years from March 1992 to March 1997, the number of police officers


in Avon and Somerset fell by 92 under the previous Government. I confirm that money will be available for the police authority in Avon and Somerset to bid for new recruits. We hope and expect that that will lead to more police officers on the ground there.

Oral Answers to Questions — Fireworks

Ms Hazel Blears: What action he is taking to prevent the deliberate use of fireworks to cause alarm, distress and injury to people and damage to property. [94992]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The law relating to criminal damage and to offences against the person applies to deliberate damage by fireworks, as it would to damage deliberately caused in other ways. In addition, the letting off of fireworks in any public place is an offence under section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875.

Ms Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but I am not satisfied that the regulations relating to fireworks are being enforced. There have been some horrific incidents in my constituency in the past few weeks. Youngsters aged nine, 10 and 11 have been putting explosives into car exhausts or down grids to blow them up. The latest trick is to put an explosive inside a traffic cone and then put the cone inside a telephone box. When it explodes, the whole telephone box goes up. That is not youngsters having fun but people terrorising the neighbourhood. I ask the Government to consider seriously the enforcement of the regulations and to ensure that magistrates take such offenders seriously.

Mrs. Roche: I am well aware of the problems that my hon. Friend has experienced in her constituency and of the detailed, firm action that she has taken. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited her constituency. Among other things, the regulations prohibit the sale of aerial shells, bangers and mini-rockets to the general public and place restrictions on the size of fireworks that can be sold generally. I know that she has been in contact with my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. I undertake to liaise with them to see what can be done. We are talking about criminality and it will be dealt with by the police. I hope that it will be investigated and arrests made.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful for the Minister's initial response to the question, and agree fervently with it. However, in view of the parliamentary answer provided by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on 25 March, and of the 23 per cent. and 12 per cent. reductions in accidents caused by firework hooliganism in 1997 and 1998 respectively, will she confirm that the Government have no further plans for additional restrictions on the use of fireworks?

Mrs. Roche: I have made it clear that the regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), we are talking about criminal activity. We do not want the enjoyment of the

many spoiled by the reckless and criminal activity of the few. The Government must keep the position under constant review. The House would expect no less.

Helen Jones: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is liaising with the DTI. In those discussions, will she raise the fact that fireworks are on sale for so long before 5 November that that in itself contributes to much of the harm and damage that is done? Will she consider the possibility of restricting sales of fireworks to individuals to a short period before 5 November, to minimise the chances of crimes occurring?

Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend's point is well made and I will make it to the DTI. It is important that the DTI has regular detailed discussions with the industry and representative bodies to ensure that such points are taken on board.

Oral Answers to Questions — Police Retirement Rates

Mr. David Amess: What representations he has received on retirement rates of police officers over the next three years. [94993]

Mr. Edward Garnier: What estimate he has made of the number of police officers who will leave the police service over the next three years. [94999]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): While I am not aware of receiving any formal representations on the retirement rates of police officers over the next three years, I frequently discuss aspects of this issue with the police associations.
Given the uncertainty as to the number of officers who take early retirement on medical grounds, or who leave the service before normal retirement age for other reasons, precise projections of wastage of police officers in the future are very difficult to make. The number of officers who left the service during the past three years for any reason was about 17,000.
Hon. Members will want to be aware of papers and calculations that I presented to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday last. Those suggest that the police service was likely to recruit 15,000 officers over the next three years, to which the 5,000 recruits to be funded from the crime-fighting fund would be additional.

Mr. Amess: When the Home Secretary announced 5,000 extra recruits, despite contrary advice from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, why did he not even touch on the subject of the retirement of police officers, so that the general public could receive an accurate picture? Is the Home Secretary aware that the residents of my constituency of Southend, West think that he is soft on crime because he does not provide enough police officers to fight crime?

Mr. David Winnick: What happened to Basildon?

Mr. Straw: It was a Labour gain. I wish the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) well in my home county.
My speech to the Labour party conference was entirely accurate as to the effect of the 5,000 officers being additional—the inaccuracy was that the baseline information that I provided was 4,000 too low. [Interruption.] I understand why Conservative Members are laughing—their fox has been shot. The simple truth is that, during the past three years, wastage has been running at 17,000, and the overall effect of the figures that I have now accurately presented is that there should be 20,000 additional recruits over the next three years. The effect of that should be that overall police numbers increase.
I acknowledge that, for reasons related to the police funding formula, Essex police have done less well than have some other forces. However, I hope that—not least because of that—the chief constable and the police authority of Essex will apply for the additional new money that is available under the crimefighting fund.

Mr. Garnier: Let us have it straight from the Home Secretary. By the end of this Parliament, will there be more or fewer police officers than there were at its beginning?

Mr. Straw: I hope very much that there will be more. However, I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, and all on the Conservative Benches who were Members of the House before 2 May 1997, that under an Act for which they voted, but which we voted against, the power of the Home Secretary to set police numbers was removed by law.
I further remind the hon. and learned Gentleman—I hope that he makes this point in his constituency—that we are providing extra new money, next year: £35 million over and above the comprehensive spending review. We shall provide further new money in the following year. The money on which those sums are based was money that he and his colleagues damned as being reckless and irresponsible. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways—saying in their constituencies that expenditure on the police should rise, while voting in the House for lower police expenditure.

Maria Eagle: What progress has my right hon. Friend made to prevent the early retirement of police officers who face disciplinary charges?

Mr. Straw: Under arrangements that I announced last year, and which came into force on 1 April this year, major changes have been made in the overall disciplinary arrangements for police officers. We also expect chief officers—and they have agreed—to enforce a long-standing but rather ignored rule, which required chief officers not to allow any officer to retire through ill health if disciplinary proceedings against him were pending. I am sure that that has the approbation of the whole House.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to review pension arrangements for officers retiring prematurely due to ill health, who, immediately or subsequently, take up alternative, full-time employment?

Mr. Straw: There is a major issue to do with the way in which the police service conducts its scrutiny of those applying for medical retirement through ill health. We all

accept that some police officers who have run into problems of ill health or sickness, or—which is worse—have been injured while on duty, should be retired and should receive a generous pension. However, at present, there are also some officers, who, in each case, have passed medical scrutiny and are retired on ill-health grounds, but who bring the rules into disrepute by taking full-time, remunerative employment straight after their retirement.
We have set clear targets for police forces to reduce the proportion of officers who retire through ill health and I am pleased to say that those targets are working, as are the associated efforts being made by the police service to reduce sickness day by day. The work done in the past year by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to tackle the issue of sickness has released 500 additional officers for front-line operational duties.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I pursue the question of police numbers and funding? When answering last week's debate, the Home Secretary said that it was his "wish, hope and expectation" that, from the end of this financial year and for the next three years, there will be more police officers on duty than there would otherwise have been next year. Is he now saying that, taking the number of police officers at the beginning of this Parliament—since when that number has decreased by more than 1,000 in England and Wales—the Government plan that there should be more police officers by the end of the Parliament? Will he also give a commitment, not only that there will be more officers, but that, in real terms and after paying pensions, the allocation of money to local forces to spend on police will increase? In short, will there be more officers and more money in real terms to pay for them?

Mr. Straw: What I said last week was a statement of fact: it is my hope and expectation that there should be more police officers at the end of the three-year period about which we are talking than at the beginning of it. The hon. Gentleman asks me to make a prediction based on the date of the next general election, but that could take place tomorrow, next year or the year after, and it is that which determines the duration of this Parliament. Because of that and because wastage rates are uncertain, I cannot make such a prediction. However, Labour's record will be infinitely better than that of the Conservatives, who, from 1992 to 1997, presided over year-by-year decreases in officer numbers, despite their promise that officer numbers would increase.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Having received from the Home Secretary no satisfactory explanation as to the lines of communication between him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, may I ask him to comment on the lines of communication between him and Lord Bassam, who is Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department and who has responsibility for the police? As late as last Thursday, Lord Bassam continued to claim in another place that there would be 11,000 recruits over the next three years, to which 5,000 would


be added, making a total of 16,000, not 20,000 as mentioned by the Home Secretary today. What is going on in the Home Office?

Mr. Straw: It is business as usual in the Home Office—and the right hon. Lady has every reason to know about that. We did not fight the election on a manifesto promising that life would be perfect in the Home Office after 2 May 1997, but I have to say that life there is a lot better than it was before that date. If she wants to exchange numbers on occasional errors, I have to tell her that her score is already far higher than mine. As for the right hon. Lady's question, I had not caught up with the matter to which she refers. However, we all know that the other place is rather old fashioned and that news takes a little time to reach it.

Miss Widdecombe: Do I gather from that that the right hon. Gentleman not only failed to communicate to his Minister the correct state of affairs as he saw it, but that his Minister failed to communicate to him that he had not received that information and had made incorrect statements?

Mr. Straw: If I were at the Dispatch Box in opposition, I would make better use of it than does the right hon. Lady. I have given her an explanation.

Miss Widdecombe: You do not like the facts.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady knows that I dislike the fact that there was an error in the original figures I gave, not least because it led to the most outrageous claims that I had tried to mislead the Labour party conference and the public, which I had not done. [Interruption.] I have given the facts. Our best estimate was that the police service would recruit at least 15,000 officers in the next five years, but we found new money to allow it to recruit 5,000 additional officers. That contrasts with the false promises of the right hon. Lady who, on 29 January 1997, promised 5,000 extra police officers while presiding over a continual decline in the number of officers. Our additional money will be ring-fenced. As the right hon. Lady has damned the current level of spending on the police service as reckless, does she welcome the additional funding that I have secured from the Treasury?

Miss Widdecombe: I will pass over—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will pass over the right hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about his patent failure to communicate with his Ministers regarding his own announcements, and ask the Home Secretary to comment on the statement of Sir Paul Condon, who said that he
shared public unease in respect of policing during the state visit of the President of China".
If Sir Paul shares public unease, one must conclude that he did not issue instructions or make suggestions to the police regarding that visit. If the Metropolitan Police Commissioner did not do that, who did?

Mr. Straw: I have already explained to the right hon. Lady, as I did to the Select Committee, that neither I nor any Home Office Minister or—as I have now ascertained—Home Office official was involved in any

briefing of the Metropolitan police service before the state visit and the associated demonstrations. I have also made it clear that there was briefing by Foreign Office officials.
I commend the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, as I fully support the way in which he and his officers policed a very difficult and delicate situation. Once again, the police found themselves, on the one hand, having to ensure the safety of the President of China and his party and of our royal family while, on the other hand, ensuring that they gave proper effect to the right to demonstrate peacefully. I support the Police Commissioner and his officers in their action, and I hope very much that the right hon. Lady does, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — Leicestershire Police

Mr. David Tredinnick: If he will increase the budget of the Leicestershire police authority; and if he will make a statement. [94995]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Our plans allow for police expenditure to increase by around 2.8 per cent. in 2000–01. No final decisions have been taken about the allocation of funding to individual forces for the coming financial year. We expect to announce provisional allocations towards the end of the year.

Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he had a chance to visit the Leicestershire police authority website? Is he aware that Leicestershire police report that 1998–99 was a more difficult year, that budgets were tighter and that the financial climate remains challenging? What reassurances can the Minister give people in Leicestershire—who are wondering whether existing police levels in the county will be maintained—that there will be an increase in police numbers? Given the controversy about the Home Secretary's announcement at the Labour party conference regarding the so-called 5,000 extra police, will the Minister confirm that it is really magic roundabout money for police that is being diverted from one budget to another? In the real world, we will not see anything like a proper increase in police numbers in Leicestershire.

Mr. Clarke: In the real world, we have announced and allocated real money. I confess that I have not studied the Leicestershire constabulary's website as my focus has been on the "Widdyweb", which is much more interesting and entertaining for a variety of reasons.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Leicestershire constabulary saw its allocation last year increase by 3.5 per cent.—or £3.6 million—over the previous year, which was well above the national average. Leicestershire had more police officers in March 1998–99 than in March 1997–98, and the number of civilian support staff has also increased. The record in Leicestershire is good, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay the Government some credit for that instead of launching whingeing attacks.

Mr. John Greenway: Of course, the 10 extra officers were paid for by the increase in funding given by the previous Conservative Government. How will the Leicestershire police pay for the new public safety radio project? What share will the authority receive from the £50 million promised by the Home Secretary a month


ago? Does the Minister agree with the Labour chairman of the West Yorkshire police committee that £50 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the £1.5 billion total cost and the value to the Government of existing radio frequencies? Does he not realise that it is impossible for any police authority, including Leicestershire, sensibly to plan the recruitment of any additional police officers until it knows how the police radios will be paid for?

Mr. Clarke: I am interested to note that today and last week the hon. Gentleman has focused the Conservatives' attack on this major new technological advance—the public safety radio project—which is a critical development that police forces and police authorities throughout the country want and need, and which should have been invested in before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced a couple of weeks ago an extra £50 million, which had not been previously allocated, towards the project. As I said in the debate last week, it is a 15-year project that will receive £1.5 billion over that period. It is wanted, the money is committed, and we shall ensure that every police force in the country has it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Police Establishment

Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the size of the police establishment of officers. [94996]

Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the number of police officers in England. [94997]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I made a full statement of the position on police numbers to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to this House on Tuesday last, 26 October.
Under legislation passed by the previous Government, the powers of the Home Secretary to set overall police numbers were removed. The Government have allocated money for a crimefighting fund which, among other things, will provide the funding for 5,000 more recruits over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years, commencing in April 2000. Some £35 million of new money will be available to support this next year, and there will be further funding in the following two years. All this is additional to the comprehensive spending review settlement for policing.

Mr. Viggers: The Home Secretary gave the Labour party conference the impression that there would be more police officers whereas, in fact, numbers are falling. If the right hon. Gentleman did not set out to mislead people, can he explain to us why so many people were misled?

Mr. Straw: What I said at the Labour party conference was entirely accurate. Moreover, if I had failed to provide a baseline—as it turned out a baseline 4,000 too few, which was hardly to my advantage, and very much to my disadvantage—I could justly have been criticised for failing to provide the whole story. I provided a baseline and provided the additional numbers over and above which that baseline would add. The figures for wastage for the previous three years were well known and, as it

happens, it is matter of record that the then Liberal Democrat spokesman on the subject, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), pointed that out on the very same day. The only people who were misled were those who—frankly—wanted to be misled, but that was certainly not as a result of what I had said.
The point that the hon. Gentleman needs to bear in mind—I hope that he does and that he tells his constituents about it—is that under his Government, whom he supported in the Lobbies, from 1992–97, despite promises of more police made not least by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald here in January 1997, police numbers fell by 1,500 over that period. It is precisely because of such falls that I was able to negotiate with my very good friends in Her Majesty's Treasury and secure this additional funding, for which I hope that Hampshire, among other forces, will apply.

Mr. Burns: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last general election the West Chelmsford Labour party mouthed the slogan, "Everybody wants more bobbies on the beat"? As a fellow Essex man, has he noticed that in the last full year for which figures are available the number of police officers in Essex fell by 37, from 2,928 to 2,891? Could he tell me and my constituents in which year he expects the number of police officers in Essex to be the same as it was when we left office, and when he expects it to be higher than when we left office?

Mr. Straw: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is asking the question, but, for reasons that he fully understands, I cannot give him that answer. He voted in 1994 to take away the power of the Home Secretary to set overall police establishments. As it happens, I voted against that. The matter—genuinely within available resources—is one for chief constables and the police authorities.
As I said to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I accept that, for no other reason but the way in which the formula operates—it grieves me, as it concerns my home county—Essex has done less well than the average. As a result, I very much hope that Essex makes a good bid for additional funding from the crime-fighting fund for next year and the year after.
I should make another point about the West Chelmsford Labour party, although I do not carry all its incantations in my head—despite my affection for the constituents of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Yes, we said that we would take measures to release more officers for operational duties, and that is precisely what we are doing through, for example, efficiency savings in early retirement and sickness arrangements, and the management of back-office arrangements. As a result of very good work by police authorities and chief constables, many more officers, in a great many forces, within the total, which may remain level, have been released for front-line operational duties.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Am I right in recalling that when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was a member of the previous Government, crime doubled? Does the Home Secretary share my view that she and her colleagues give the impression that they will not be satisfied until half the population are in prison and the other half are in the police force? Although police numbers are important, do not members of the public want


a success made of crime partnerships, which involve councils, the police and community and business organisations, so that crime can be tackled from the streets where they live and not from some police service headquarters?

Mr. Straw: As ever, my hon. Friend's memory is perfect. He is entirely right to recall a fact that Opposition Members are trying to excise from the national memory: under the Conservatives, crime doubled.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Crime fell.

Mr. Straw: The way in which the Conservatives produce such smoke and mirrors—if I may coin a phrase—is by picking on different dates. Crime doubled under the Conservatives, and it is one of the many reasons why it will be decades before the British public ever show the confidence to vote for them again.
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the crime partnerships. Many police chiefs say to me that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is one of the best ever pieces of legislation to come their way. In the west midlands, where I was this morning, there is tangible evidence of the effectiveness of such partnerships—in Sandwell, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Coventry, of course, and Birmingham. The best evidence of how an imaginative chief constable has been able to put more officers on front-line operational duties is in the west midlands, where Ted Crewe, the chief constable, has released 700 officers from back-office headquarters jobs for front-line operational duties. I wish that Opposition Members would start applauding such innovation.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend's constituency is just a few miles away from mine, and is served by the same Lancashire constabulary. I am sure that he will know that the Burnley Express is running a campaign—"More Bobbies for Burnley"—based on what it calls my right hon. Friend's impressive speech, which it was, at the Labour party conference. Will he respond positively to that? Will he give an assurance that the Dordrecht initiative, which has been supported by the Home Office in Burnley and has had a massive effect in reducing the level of burglaries and robberies, will continue to enjoy his Department's support?

Mr. Straw: I am always anxious to satisfy my friends from Burnley—both my hon. Friend and, of course, Mr. Alastair Campbell—not least because of what my hon. Friend would say about a certain football team if I did not. I am aware of the importance of the Dordrecht initiative. Such matters must be decided on objective criteria rather than on simply who is, as it were, one's old pal. However, I shall ensure that that application is given very careful consideration.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to the work of the Sussex police, who continue to do a fine job, albeit with fewer and decreasing resources? Will he acknowledge that, although there are difficulties in calculating exact numbers because of the number of police at Gatwick airport, there is widespread anxiety in the villages, particularly those of Mid-Sussex, that the number of

police who are assigned to look after them is gradually falling? Will he give my constituents some hope that that number will increase?

Mr. Straw: I acknowledge the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is a truth at all times that there will never be sufficient police officers to satisfy everyone and chief constables have difficult decisions to make about where to put them.
I am aware of what has happened to police numbers in Sussex. I take one period. Between 1995 and 1998, Sussex received a 12.5 per cent. increase in its budget and numbers went down, but numbers have gone up in some forces that had either the same or a lower increase. That is where chief constables' decisions on how to allocate resources make a difference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blame them."] It is not a question of blaming chief constables, but it is a fact that, since 1994, it is chief constables—of course, within the overall money—who have set the number of officers and the number of civilians, and have made decisions on the use of and expenditure on equipment. If one looks down the table—I would be happy to provide it to the hon. Gentleman—one finds that there are significant variations in how chief officers have used their discretion within the same level of resources.
The pot of money from the crime-fighting fund is not unlimited, but I hope that Sussex, along with other forces, will make an application for additional officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — Travellers

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What plans he has to ensure the effective dispersal of illegal encampments by travellers. [94998]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The police and local authorities have, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, all the powers necessary to ensure effective dispersal of illegal encampments by travellers. Those are in addition to the rights of landowners to take civil action through the courts. However, the exercise of those powers is subject to operational guidelines that are issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The use of such powers in any individual case is an operational matter to be determined by the senior police officer at the scene, but Home Office and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions guidance makes it clear that such powers can be used at an early stage, where necessary, and recommends an inter-agency approach to deal with problems.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this summer's remarks by the Home Secretary regarding the behaviour of some travellers were met with a chorus of approval in my constituency, especially in the communities of Beccles and Bungay, where a group of travellers spent four weeks in one public open space? Just when the council was about to complete the civil procedures, they moved and spent another four weeks on a school playing field, leaving piles of rubbish and filth on both sites.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the public want illegal encampments to be dispersed quickly, and that the civil remedy is not effective in that respect? Will he issue


even stronger guidance to the police to ensure that they use all available legislation to disperse illegal encampments because Suffolk police have said to me that their policy is hardly to use such powers?

Mr. Boateng: The Home Secretary's remarks did strike a chord throughout the country. It is important that everyone should understand that criminal and disorderly behaviour cannot be tolerated, from whatever source it comes. The DETR and the Home Office have made it clear that they expect the powers that are available to the police to be used in a way that reflects that public concern. The Crime and Disorder Act gives the police additional powers.
We are examining whether it is necessary to review the guidance that has been issued by the DETR and the Home Office to strengthen the hand of local authorities and the police. Such anti-social behaviour simply cannot be tolerated; the Government will not tolerate it.

Mr. John Randall: Does the Minister agree that one of the Metropolitan police's problems in dealing with such illegal encampments in the constituency of Uxbridge is the continuing reduction in the resources and manpower of the Metropolitan police Hillingdon division? Therefore, is it not time that the Home Office did something to reassure the law-abiding citizens of the suburbs?

Mr. Boateng: The very reverse is true. Under the previous Administration, the Metropolitan police lost 2,000 police officers. The current Government, however, have made available to the Metropolitan police the resources necessary to cope with illegal encampments. We should recognise the importance of backing police and local authorities in firm action against that type of illegal activity, and the Government have provided that backing across the United Kingdom with a series of seminars promoting good practice. We shall continue to do that, and to provide the police with the resources that they need to tackle the problem. We are providing to the police more resources than they ever received under the previous, Conservative Administration.

Mr. Phil Hope: Is not effective co-operation between the police, local authorities and county councils one important aspect in how we might more effectively resolve the problem? Since the previous Conservative Government withdrew legislation ensuring the availability of legal campsites on which travellers could camp, the problem of illegal encampments has simply grown worse. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary take the opportunity to re-examine the guidance, to ensure that local authorities and the police work effectively together on the problem, and that the policy of neighbouring police services is consistent, so that encampments do not move from one county to another?

Mr. Boateng: The previous Conservative Government certainly did nothing to improve the situation. We are ensuring, however, that the type of partnerships that deliver results are encouraged. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 encourages such partnerships. We are also spreading good practice. We have to ensure not only that local authorities and the police work together, but that that work is underpinned by work with the community and local business. Together, we can beat the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — Freedom of Information

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What recent representations he has received on the Government's proposals for freedom of information. [95000]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The consultation document on freedom of information, published on 24 May 1999, invited comments on the draft legislation. We received a total of 2,248 submissions—all but 400 of which were part of an organised petition on scientific experimentation on animals. None the less, copies of the submissions have been placed in the Library. On 22 October, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the changes that we propose to make to the draft Bill after the consultation period. We shall introduce a Freedom of Information Bill as soon as the legislative timetable allows.

Mr. Kirkwood: Why does the proposed Bill still allow for facts on which policy decisions have been based to remain secret, given, first, that the United Kingdom code of conduct, which the Bill seeks to replace, allows disclosure; secondly, that the Republic of Ireland, in 1997, introduced its own freedom of information legislation allowing disclosure; and, thirdly, and perhaps most extraordinarily of all, that the Home Secretary himself—on 21 July, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Public Administration—said that, on balance, he thought that it was probably right that background and factual information should be made available? Is it not wholly inadequate that we should merely rely on encouraging authorities to use their discretion to make such essential information available?

Mr. O'Brien: Much factual information is already available. The Government have considered with great care the various submissions that have been made, and have introduced a draft Bill that we believe strikes the right balance. Although it is correct to say that, in the past, Governments have been too secretive, the Bill will open up government.
Nevertheless, freedom of information cannot be absolute—there is a tension between balancing interests, such as the individual's right to privacy and the confidentiality of some commercial information that is given to Government. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that up to 60 per cent. of requests for information under United States freedom of information legislation are made by companies seeking to elicit confidential information held by the Government about other companies.
We also have to ensure the good and effective administration of Government, which entails that discussions are held properly within Government. In many cases, however, the background factual information may already be in the public arena or—because of the legislation and the culture of openness that we seek to introduce—may be placed in the public arena by Ministers.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a jealous clinging to secrecy by every Government this century, and that it is essential that this Government should prove themselves


conclusively different? Will he, please, remember that the Home Secretary has an endearing personal habit of telling the truth, frequently to his own disadvantage, and that that might be an example that it would be very useful for the rest of the Government to follow?

Mr. O'Brien: As my hon. Friend says, my right hon. Friend has a record for being open with the House and bringing forward legislation that makes substantial changes. Nothing in the Bill will prevent the disclosure of any information. We must be clear about that. Exemptions do not necessarily prevent the publication of information. Ministers can decide to publish material covered by an exemption if appropriate. We intend to create a new culture of openness in government. The Bill must be seen in the context of the new statutory right of access to information, the new requirement to consider exercising discretion, new publication schemes and a new information commissioner, who will have strong powers to elicit information from the Government and from other public authorities.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Despite the 21 exemptions in the Bill, does the Minister agree that its purpose is to ensure openness and clarity in government? Does he agree that episodes such as that which happened this morning, when the Home Secretary told a BBC reporter in Birmingham that the chief constable of Staffordshire had his figures wrong, demonstrate that there is no clarity in government? Does not backing the police force mean backing chief constables and not calling them liars?

Mr. O'Brien: Staffordshire had the biggest increase of any constabulary between 1995 and 1998. The hon. Gentleman must be sure of his ground when he starts talking about freedom of information, because when he stood for election, the Tory campaign guide—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has quoted from it before, but it is worth hearing again—said that the party's view on freedom of information legislation was:
The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a freedom of information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman includes himself in that category.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an inquisitive left-wing busybody, may I ask how Home Office Ministers fancy the idea of their Bill being contrasted with a Bill, which would be the dream of Mr. Maurice Frankel, put forward by the Edinburgh Parliament? Would that create problems?

Mr. O'Brien: We will ensure that the Bill that comes before this House deals with matters for Britain as a whole. We want to ensure a change in the legislation and a new code of practice to make it effective, as well as a change of culture in government. We have a manifesto commitment to introduce effective freedom of information legislation. We shall have to wait and see what proposals come forward in Scotland. The Scottish

Parliament may decide to do things differently; that is the prerogative of devolution. Our freedom of information legislation will substantially change the way in which the Government operate. For 18 years, the previous Government did nothing. We shall deliver freedom of information legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Student Visas

Mr. Richard Allan: What is the current average processing time for an application for the extension of a student visa by the immigration and nationality directorate. [95002]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The time taken to process an application for variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom will vary according to complexity. In many cases, straightforward applications from overseas students are being processed within about six weeks, but applications requiring further inquiries will take longer to process.

Mr. Allan: I hope that the Minister accepts that international students make a huge economic and cultural contribution to my city of Sheffield and to the nation as a whole. I hope that she agrees that it should be an aim of public policy to place as few administrative burdens as possible in their way, consistent with the proper operation of immigration policy. Does she understand that it is distressing for international students to be left without their travel documents, even for only six weeks, although in many cases it runs to months? Will she further consider that more use should be made of local immigration officers, such as we have at Sheffield airport, for processing claims and stamping passports so that students can keep their passports while their claims are being dealt with?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of sense. I agree that, in the main, overseas students bring great benefit to the UK—principally the reputation of the UK that they take home with them after their time here. About 1,500 applications a week from overseas students are being decided within six weeks of receipt, and applications received since 11 October are being processed within two weeks of receipt. I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the matter, and I will undertake to look at all his constructive suggestions.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I suspect that some of the more problematic applications for extensions are those where students are trying to switch from one course to another. Will the Home Office do all that it can to ensure that, whenever possible, students applying for courses lasting two or three years are given visas for the whole of that period, which would cut the need for repeat applications for extensions?

Mrs. Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and we do look at this matter. This is one of the areas of difficulty that take a little longer to process.

Mr. David Lidington: May I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench in her new Home Office capacity? Does she agree that the problems over the extension of visas for students represent just one detail of what appears to be the increasingly chaotic handling by the Government of the immigration and nationality directorate? British citizens are having to wait up to three months for their post to be opened, and the backlog of immigration and asylum cases amounts to 149,000—it has risen by nearly two and a half times during 1999 alone. Does she agree that this contrasts with the honeyed words of the Home Office's annual report, which talks about the IND and says:
The situation has now settled, and the majority of problems have been resolved"?
Will the hon. Lady get a grip on her Department's handling of immigration matters? Can she start by telling the House today what date she has given the IND by which it is to comply with the Government's target of processing all asylum applications within six months?

Mrs. Roche: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous welcome, which is much appreciated. I must then depart from that to say that I do not agree with a word he had to say. I am amazed that he had the gall to come to this House and say what he said when the Government of whom he was a supporter left the system in such a shambles. He and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) are adding to the problem following a vote that took place in the other House. The Opposition amendment would drive a coach and horses through the Government's legislation and would cost the taxpayer—including people in the right hon. Lady's own Kent constituency—£500 million. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the day after the vote in the Lords, the right hon. Lady described the amendment as "sensible" and "common sense". What nonsense she talks.

Oral Answers to Questions — Road Deaths

Mrs. Helen Brinton: If he will ensure that deaths on the road caused by negligence are treated the same as any other death caused by negligence. [95003]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): A driver who is grossly negligent and causes death may be charged with gross negligence manslaughter, just as he might if death occurred elsewhere than on the road. In other circumstances, deaths on the road can lead to convictions for causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.
Where death results from carelessness, there is no separate offence of "causing death". This is the same as in other situations where negligence falls short of gross negligence.

Mrs. Brinton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case in Sheffield only last week when a 16-year-old girl's life was valued at a paltry £1,000 in fines and a three-year driving ban for the driver whose actions directly caused her death? Does he agree with me and many other hon. Members that that is yet another tragic example of why the Government must take decisive action as soon as possible?

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot comment on specific legal cases, but I am aware of cases of the type that she has described; they give great cause for concern in many ways. She brought a delegation from her constituency to see me and discuss these issues in great detail. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the proportion of those convicted going into custody, the average sentence length and the number of people sentenced to five years or more are all increasing year on year. That is a trend in the right direction.

Ellington Colliery

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement this morning of the closure of Ellington colliery in my constituency, with the loss of more than 400 jobs.
Ellington is the last deep mine in the north-east. It was closed once before by British Coal, and RJB reopened it, primarily to supply Alcan. A much reduced work force—there used to be nearer 2,000 men—worked hard and efficiently to turn in a profit every year. People in Northumberland have had to accept a substantial amount of opencast mining, partly on the grounds that its product was necessary to enable Ellington's deep-mined coal still to be used by Alcan.
The matter should be considered for debate, first because Ministers must take responsibility for the state of the energy market—with subsidised or below-cost imports and some resumption of the dash for gas, there is too much coal about, which is why RJB can bring in coal from elsewhere to meet its Alcan requirement—and, secondly, because Governments have been involved from the start in the Ellington complex, where coal goes straight from the pit to Alcan's power station to provide the fuel for the smelter. That should not be lightly abandoned in favour of any short-term coal supplies that RJB may happen to have in any of its stockyards across the country.
RJB says that the reserves that can be worked will soon be worked. How soon? We would like to hear Ministers' views. RJB also says that it wants to sell the mine. Will the Government be willing to help a new buyer? The area has double the national unemployment rate and cannot afford to lose more than 400 jobs. If the mine closes, a massive responsibility will fall on Ministers to give further help to the whole of east Northumberland. None of it has objective 1 status and not all of it has even objective 2 status.
We need a debate to find out what Ministers will do if the job losses go ahead. To people in Northumberland, the matter is much more important than whether we print documents on vellum, which is one of the subjects for debate later today. Even if you cannot grant an urgent debate tomorrow, Madam Speaker, I hope that opportunities will arise for me and hon. Members with constituencies neighbouring mine further to reinforce how important the matter is to Northumberland.

Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have to give my decision without stating my reasons for it. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, so I cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any representation from a Department of Trade and Industry Minister regarding the pit closure? Is there any way in which we can get a Minister to the Dispatch Box through you?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by a Minister that he wants to make a statement, but the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others know their way around the House and will know how to pursue the matter.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before I make my point of order, I refer you to my relevant entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
Since the Bernie Ecclestone affair, in which the Labour party had to return the £1 million that he paid it not to ban tobacco advertising, the Government's policy on the ban has been somewhat confused. Irrespective of the merits of the Government's arguments in favour of a ban, is it in order for Ministers and their supporters to abuse the courts for making decisions that they find politically inconvenient? The Government are entitled to their opinion on tobacco advertising and smoking; I agree that smoking is a danger to health. They are also entitled to appeal the decision made on Friday to stay their ban on advertising. However, are they entitled to resort to abusing the courts? Secondly, have you had a request from the Secretary of State for permission to make a statement explaining why the Government felt it appropriate to make those remarks, as opposed to arguing their case on appeal?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. and learned Gentleman understands, the Speaker has no jurisdiction over comments made outside the House. I have enough responsibilities for comments made in the House, let alone those made outside. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question, I have to inform him that I have had no request for any Minister to make a statement.

Orders of the Day — Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords]

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

ARBITRATION PROVISIONS

'.—(1) Where—

(a) a right under section 1 to enforce a term ("the substantive term") is subject to a term providing for the submission of disputes to arbitration ("the arbitration agreement"), and
(b) the arbitration agreement is an agreement in writing for the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996,

the third party shall be treated for the purposes of that Act as a party to the arbitration agreement as regards disputes between himself and the promisor relating to the enforcement of the substantive term by the third party.

(2) Where—

(a) a third party has a right under section 1 to enforce a term providing for one or more descriptions of dispute between the third party and the promisor to be submitted to arbitration ("the arbitration agreement"),
(b) the arbitration agreement is an agreement in writing for the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996, and
(c) the third party does not fall to be treated under subsection (1) as a party to the arbitration agreement,

the third party shall, if he exercises the right, be treated for the purposes of that Act as a party to the arbitration agreement in relation to the matter with respect to which the right is exercised, and be treated as having been so immediately before the exercise of the right.'.—[Mr. Lock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.

Mr. Lock: The new clause deals with arbitration and will ensure that, where appropriate, the Arbitration Act 1996 applies to the enforcement of third-party rights under the Bill. No one disputes that that is the right policy, but the subject is technical and—I apologise to the House for introducing further amendments on such a subject at this late stage—concerns that were raised during the recess have made us examine the wording carefully.
I record my gratitude to those who raised the concerns and to the arbitration experts who helped us ensure that the drafting was right. Subsection (1) of the new clause will bring in the provisions of the Arbitration Act where the third party's right to enforce a substantive term in his favour is subject to a term providing for the submission of disputes to arbitration.
Subsection (1) will also ensure that when a third party whose right of enforcement is subject to the dispute being referred to arbitration seeks to enforce his right by litigation, the promisor—the other party to the contract—will be able to seek a stay of the proceedings under

section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The Bill as now drafted would not allow that course of action if the third party, whose right under the Bill is subject to arbitration, chose to litigate instead. The Government have decided that it would probably not be safe to rely on the court's using its inherent power to stay the proceedings brought by the third party.
Subsection (2) of the new clause is concerned with situations in which the "conditional benefit" approach will not apply—for example, where the contracting parties give the third party a right to arbitrate a dispute other than one concerning a right conferred on the third party under clause 1, such as a tort claim made by the promisor against the third party. We do not believe that such situations will occur often, but to require the third party to arbitrate where there is no other benefit to him would be to impose a pure burden on him, which would be contrary to the policy of the Bill. Subsection (2) therefore brings in the Arbitration Act only where the third party has chosen to exercise the right to arbitrate.
Amendment No. 1 would delete clause 7(4), which is being replaced by the new clause on arbitration.

Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Speaker, because this is the first opportunity that I have had publicly to welcome both the new Parliamentary Secretaries to the Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), to their Front-Bench posts. I congratulate them on their appointments.
Promotion to the Lord Chancellor's Department seems to be the precursor of further preferment, so I wonder where both hon. Members will be in a year's time. I am especially delighted because I believe that the hon. Member for Wavertree has set a precedent, in that she is not a lawyer. I do not know whether she is the first non-lawyer ever to be a Minister in that Department, but if so the precedent is welcome, especially to me, because I am the only lawyer among the 26 new Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. I shall draw the precedent to the attention of our new party leader.
I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its excellent work on the Bill. I am also grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his letter to me of 18 October and for advance notice of new clause 1. He will be aware that I raised several points on Second Reading that were dealt with by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), in his letter to me of 12 July.
For reasons of certainty and to incorporate various other provisions—for example, guarantees of performance by third parties given by banks or insurance companies—most commercial organisations will continue to insist on written agreements with third parties, which are usually called collateral warranties or collateral agreements. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make it clear when he responds that if there is a conflict between a written collateral warranty or agreement and the Bill—including the parties agreeing to contract out of the Bill—the provisions of the written agreement will prevail. I welcome the new clause, because it will go some way to meeting the problems that I envisaged on Second Reading and that were dealt with by the letter I received from the hon. Member for Leicester, East.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I join the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)


in his congratulations to the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) on their appointments. It is an especial pleasure to welcome them because I worked with the hon. Lady on cross-party matters in the previous Parliament and because the hon. Gentleman and I come from the same chambers in Birmingham. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that, in addition to his appointment and mine, the head of our former chambers—now called St. Philip's chambers—is the new leader of the Midland and Oxford circuit. Our chambers therefore has triple cause for celebration.
Like the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, the official Opposition accept that new clause 1 is a useful clarification. The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to write to me as well to explain the new clause and, as somebody who was at one stage an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and dealt with cases involving collateral warranties, I recognise that the Government are right to doubt whether it would be safe to rely on an inherent power in the court to stay proceedings brought by the third party in the circumstances mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary.
New clause 1(2) is a wise change, because it will bring in the Arbitration Act 1996 only in cases in which the third party has chosen to exercise the right to arbitrate. It is helpful that the Parliamentary Secretary has given the Opposition parties advance notice of the Government's intentions, and we welcome the clarification contained in the new clause.

Mr. Lock: I can confirm to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) that it is the Government's understanding that new clause 1—and, indeed, the whole Bill—will not affect the operation of collateral warranties. It will be up to the parties themselves whether they choose to enter into collateral warranties or rely on the terms of the Bill. Indeed, under the terms of the Bill, the original parties to the contract will be able to specify the extent to which, if at all, the contract will apply to third parties and can, if they choose, contract out of the third party rights in their entirety. In those circumstances, it is correct to say that the provisions of any collateral warranty will take precedence over any rights under the Bill.
I am grateful for the kind words from the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), and I concur with what the latter said about the position of our previous chambers. I also welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) to prove that the Lord Chancellor's Department is neither an all-boys club nor entirely a lawyers club.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

NORTHERN IRELAND

'.—(1) In its application to Northern Ireland, this Act has effect with the modifications specified in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 6(2), for "section 14 of the Companies Act 1985" there is substituted "Article 25 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".

(3) In section 7, for subsection (3) there is substituted—

(3) In Articles 4(a) and 15 of the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the references to an action founded on a simple contract and an action upon an instrument under seal shall respectively include references to an action brought in reliance on section 1 relating to a simple contract and an action brought in reliance on that section relating to a contract under seal.".

(4) In the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, the following provisions are hereby repealed—

(a) section 5, and
(b) in section 6, in subsection (1)(a), the words "in the case of section 4" and "and in the case of section 5 the contracting party" and, in subsection (3), the words "or section 5".'.—[Mr. Lock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 3.

Mr. Lock: In 1998, the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland issued a report which recommended for Northern Ireland reforms similar to those contained in the Bill. As contract law in Northern Ireland has traditionally paralleled that in England and Wales, it was originally the Government's intention to implement the Law Reform Advisory Committee's recommendations by extending the Bill directly to Northern Ireland. However, as the prospect of devolution grew ever closer, it was decided that, as contract law will fall within the transferred area of competence, the reforms should be a matter for decision by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. Regrettably, however, the Assembly is not yet up and running, and the Government have decided that this valuable piece of law reform should therefore be extended directly to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 3 directly extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland, subject to the consequential amendments that are contained in the new clause.
Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the new clause make minor consequential amendments to clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, so that the references to legislation will apply to the equivalent statutory provisions in Northern Ireland.
Subsection (4) of the new clause repeals section 5 of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, which has no direct equivalent in England and Wales. That section modifies the rule of privity of contract in respect of contracts that expressly confer a right on the spouse or child of the contracting parties. As the Bill before us makes comprehensive provision for third-party beneficiaries under a contract, there will no longer be any need for that provision on the Northern Ireland statute book when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Subsection (4) also makes a minor consequential amendment to section 6 of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, which takes account of the repeal of section 5 of that Act.

Mr. Burnett: I shall not delay the House long. In the absence of any Member of Parliament from the Province, I simply ask whether full consultation has taken place with the legal and other professional bodies in the


Province, and have they raised any objections, or any points requiring clarification, concerning the Bill's impact on the Province?

Mr. Hawkins: I, too, can be brief. I was simply worried about what the Minister said in his covering letter to me, when he raised the question of uncertainty over the Northern Ireland Assembly. The future of Northern Ireland is in all our thoughts, for reasons much more serious than the contents of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister might say a word or two about what he meant by the uncertainty over the Northern Ireland Assembly. I also associate myself with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.

Mr. Lock: In answer to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, yes, there has been consultation, and yes, as I said, these provisions arose from a report of the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland published last year and, as far as I am aware, no substantive objections have been made to the extension of the rights in the Bill—which is a Law Commission Bill—to Northern Ireland.
In answer to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I do not feel that it would help the delicate position in Northern Ireland to say anything further at the Dispatch Box this afternoon about the relationship between Britain and Northern Ireland, save that I do not feel that it is right that, given that these rights will be of value to people in Northern Ireland, we should hold up their implementation while other political events continue elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 6

EXCEPTIONS

Mr. Lock: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 4, after '2', insert 'or 3'.
Amendment No. 2 adds part B of schedule 3 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 to the list of international transport conventions in subsection (8) of clause 6. Contracts that are subject to the rules of the conventions in this list are excluded from the effects of the Bill because we do not believe that we should interfere where other legislation deals expressly with the question of third-party rights. This schedule, which was inserted after the Law Commission had published its report and which was therefore not in the original Bill, is concerned with the regulation of the international carriage of cargo by air.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO THIRD PARTY

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Lock.]

Clause 8

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) This Act extends as follows—

(a) section (Northern Ireland) extends to Northern Ireland only;
(b) the remaining provisions extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.'.—[Mr. Lock.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mr. Lock: This welcome Bill is the result of another excellent piece of work by the Law Commission and has met with support from all sides, both in another place and in this House. I should like to express my gratitude to the Law Commission for all its work on this Bill, and to all the organisations and individuals who have contributed to the development of our policy, including all those who have taken part in the debates during the Bill's passage through this House and in another place. I am particularly grateful to Professor Andrew Burrows for his continued help after the Law Commission's Report was published in 1996.
Although this is a short Bill, it is immensely technical in character. Virtually every word reflects a careful policy decision by the Law Commission, for which the Government are grateful. This important Bill reforms the common law rule of privity of contract, under which a person can take action to enforce a contract only if he is a party to it.
It might be helpful if I gave a brief example of the benefits of the Bill. Let us assume that a couple are getting married. A relative goes to a shop where a wedding list is kept, buys them a three-piece suite as a wedding present and arranges to have it delivered directly to them. It is made clear in the discussions with the furniture shop that holds the list that the suite is a gift for the couple. Under the rule of privity of contract, the couple would not have any recourse against the shop because they were not parties to the contract. Any action against the shop for breach of contract would have to be taken by the relative who was one of the original contracting parties.
The Bill provides that a third party will have the right to enforce a term of a contract, both where the contract expressly provides that he should and where the contract purports to confer a benefit on him, provided that it does not appear that it was not the parties' intention that the term should be enforceable by the third party. In my example, the Bill would allow the couple who received the suite as a wedding present, and who are third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the relative and the shop, to take action directly against the shop for any breach of contract.
In view of the questions that were asked on Second Reading and in Committee, I should stress that whether the Bill applies to a particular contract will depend on the express or implied intentions of the original contracting parties. I must also stress the need for clear and careful drafting of contracts so that the intentions of the


contracting parties are obvious. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) who made a similar point on Second Reading.
We have also been asked whether the Bill should state that it binds the Crown, so that where the Crown is the promisor it may be sued by a third party. The Bill does not impose any obligation or restraint on the Crown. It is simply an enabling measure for the benefit of parties to contracts, to make it possible for them to give third parties enforceable rights by agreement. The language of "binding the Crown" is inappropriate here. It is the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 that enables proceedings in contract to be brought against the Crown, whether they are brought by the promisee or by a third party.
The construction industry has shown a keen interest in the Bill, both through the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in this House, and in the other place. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to meet representatives of the Construction Confederation to hear their concerns. Having heard those concerns, I hope that it may be helpful if I explain the policy behind two of the Bill's clauses.
First, the intention of clause 1(5) is that all the remedies available to a person bringing a claim for breach of contract should be available to a third party seeking to enforce his rights under the Bill, and that the normal rules relating to damages, injunctions, specific performance and other relief should apply accordingly. It has been suggested that we should amend the Bill so that it specifies that the rules on foreseeability in damages claims should apply. If the Bill listed only one of the rules on damages, it could cast doubt on the application of the other rules on damages, such as the duty to mitigate loss.
Nor is a comprehensive listing necessary because the clause refers to
the rules relating to damages".
That means all the rules that the courts have deemed necessary to regulate the assessment of damages. It would be inconsistent with our aim to try to set out all the common law rules that could apply and to freeze the statute in time in the face of a developing common law. Our intention is that the Bill should avoid that by setting out the principles of fundamental change which it makes to the law without descending to the level of unnecessary detail.
The other issue on which I have promised to provide further explanation is concerned with the use of the term "variation" in clause 2. The clause will affect provisions in construction contracts which allow the items of work under a contract to be varied as the construction proceeds, so as to accommodate changing circumstances. The construction industry's concern, which I accept is legitimate, arises because the Bill uses the word "variation" in its strict and correct legal meaning—a variation of the terms of an agreement by further

agreement between the parties to the original agreement. But when the construction industry uses the term it often refers to alterations to the work done within the terms of the original agreement and without varying its terms.
The usual situation is a contract which allows one of the parties to change the specifications of work unilaterally, subject to a change in the amount to be paid. The Law Commission was aware of the way in which the construction industry used the term when it produced its report, and made it clear that such changes to work specifications would not be covered by the restrictions in clause 2, even if they were described in the industry as variations to the work. The point is dealt with at paragraph 9.37 of the Law Commission's report, with which I agree.
As clause 2 does not apply to variations of work rather than of the terms of contract, the third party's rights will be subject to any provisions in the contract which allow what has been built to be varied unilaterally. If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has been persuaded that the Law Commission was not correct, I may respond, with the leave of the House, to any concern that he may raise.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for their constructive and helpful approach to this valuable law reform measure. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Hawkins: I greatly welcome the Minister's helpful clarification. I am grateful to him for meeting a delegation of leaders of the construction industry which I took to see him a few weeks ago. He made it clear then that he was prepared to clarify these points so that we could rely on what has been said in future cases, in line with the Pepper v. Hart decision, and I am grateful to him.
The industry has continuing concerns but is prepared to accept the Minister's helpful clarification. The Opposition echo what the Minister said about the value of the Law Commission's work, and we made it clear in Committee and on Second Reading that we greatly welcome the Bill, which is a helpful, and perhaps overdue, change in the law. As the Minister has clarified matters specifically to help the construction industry, I can do no other than welcome what he has said.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the provisions on variations. I am grateful also to the Law Commission for its excellent work and for promoting this Bill, which we support and will not impede.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INSURANCE BROKERS REGISTRATION COUNCIL

That the draft Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Restriction of Exemption) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 27th July, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1994), dated 14th July 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community Documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

HARMONISATION OF COPYRIGHT AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IN THE SINGLE MARKET

That this House takes note of European Union Document Nos. 5562/98, a draft Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the Information Society, and 8723/99, an amended draft of this Directive; and of European Union Documents Nos. 5123/99, a draft Directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce in the internal market, and 10644/99, an amended draft of this Directive, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 18th October 1999; and concerning the draft Directive on the harmonisation of copyright, supports the Government's view that while harmonisation of copyright laws for the digital age is essential, the outcome should be a regime that safeguards a fair balance of rights and interests between the various categories of rights holders and between rights holders, users and intermediaries, and has due regard to subsidiarity; and concerning the draft Directive on electronic commerce in the internal market, welcomes the Government's continued efforts to put in place a light but effective framework for the development of electronic commerce within the internal market; and supports the Government's view that such a framework is necessary to ensure consumer and business confidence in electronic commerce.

TAXATION OF ENERGY PRODUCTS

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6793/97, a draft Directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products; and supports the Government's objective of securing a permanent exemption for the domestic use of energy.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Record Copies of Acts

[Relevant document: The Second Report from the Administration Committee on Record Copies of Acts (HC 539).]

Madam Speaker: We come now to motion 7 on record copies of Acts. It is for the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) to move the Lords message.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I beg to move that this House agrees with the Lords in their resolution.

Madam Speaker: May I give the hon. Gentleman a little guidance? I require him to move the first motion, which is that the Lords message be now considered. Once that is formally moved, we can make a start.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for that guidance. I beg to move

Mr. Brian White: Objection.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman objects, he must divide the House.

Mr. White: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I misunderstood when the Division was due.
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 19th October, communicating a resolution relating to record copies of Acts of Parliament, be now considered.—[Dr. Palmer.]

Dr. Palmer: I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Lords in their resolution.
I convey to the House apologies from the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). I know that she has already written to you, Madam Speaker, but she had a long-standing prior engagement that she could not break.
The Lords message contains the recommendations made by the Administration Committee in its second report. In effect, if not in fact, the House is being asked to approve our report. As it was unanimous, I can speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Broxbourne and all my Committee colleagues. I thank the Clerk of the House for detailed way in which he put his case and the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in another place and the Clerk of the Parliaments. As the matter was of equal interest to both Houses, the Committee was pleased that the other place kept us informed fully of progress on the parallel proposals there.
Although I support the modernisation of Parliament's procedures and practices, I am not an iconoclast. I do not advocate or support change for its own sake. I had to be convinced that the proposal to keep record copies on paper rather than vellum was justifiable and that it would be appropriate both in terms of practicality and of what I might call the dignity of the House.
There are two strands to our report. The first would end the deposition of duplicate record copies of both public and private Acts at the Public Record Office. That appears


to serve no useful purpose and the Committee received no representations against the proposals from hon. Members, the PRO, the Master of the Rolls or anyone else. My short speech will therefore concentrate on our other proposal that, from next year, record copies of Acts should be preserved on archival paper rather than on vellum goatskin.
The proposal has generated some interest among hon. Members and others, including the impressively powerful campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), who has fought hard on behalf of his constituents who work for William Cowley's, the company that produces vellum. The proprietor of Cowley's and his relatives have vigorously mobilised opposition; they have inspired letters from, among others, the British Library, the National Library of Wales, the National Library of Scotland and Trinity college, Dublin. All those bodies claim that vellum is best for maintaining record copies; they have expressed various concerns and have made arguments about why that should be so. I shall address those concerns, and hope to convince the House that they are groundless. I shall add a—perhaps—more fundamental reason why those libraries have made those objections.
It has been pointed out that vellum is less susceptible than paper to fire damage. However, the problem with that argument is that vellum and paper are both flammable, so security cannot depend only on the document's material. If there is a serious fire, a document will burn whether it is of vellum or paper. I remind the House that all the records of the House of Commons were destroyed in the fire of 1834, whereas most of the records of the House of Lords survived. That was not because the House of Lords documents were recorded on a different material, but because officials, policemen and soldiers braved the flames and were able to save many of the documents by throwing them out of the window. We depend partly on that type of physical security; the Administration Committee and other Committees are anxious to maximise it. However, to rely only on the fact that the paper itself will not burn is not adequate.
Let us suppose that the record copy of an Act was destroyed or damaged. That would not be such a disaster as it would at first appear. One possible course of action would be the issue of a new, authenticated version by the Clerk of the Parliaments of the day. The Stationery Office has helpfully offered to provide a CD-Rom of the authenticated text for the Public Record Office. That would be much easier for hon. Members and for the Library to consult than a paper or vellum record, so the paper copy would be requested less often, and would be less likely to be damaged in the first place.
It has been claimed that electronic documents cease to be readable after a few years, unless constantly upgraded. That is a misunderstanding based on the fact that people who work with different versions of Word, for example, are aware that they may not stay current after several years. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will agree, the computing industry met that concern with the introduction of portable document format and other formats that are designed to last and can be supported by future documents.

Mr. White: I am slightly confused. Is my hon. Friend saying that internet technology and CD-Rom are

incompatible with the storage of records on vellum? I would have thought that both could occur at the same time. Why is that technology an objection to the continued use of vellum?

Dr. Palmer: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that we now have additional ways of providing secure copies is not an argument against vellum; it is merely that the fact that it is possible to set fire to a piece of paper is not a conclusive argument against paper.
It was claimed that the Committee was biased against the use of animal products—because vellum is goatskin and paper is not. The idea that we should not use animal products unnecessarily is an attractive one. However, we did not advance that argument either in our report, or in the memorandum appended to it by the Clerk of the House. Neither sentiment nor animal welfare considerations affected our judgment. We reached our conclusion for practical—even prosaic—reasons.
The crucial matter is the durability of paper as a suitable medium for record copies of Acts. That is confirmed in the memorandum from the Clerk of the House, which forms the appendix to our report. The memorandum states:
British Library Conservation Department laboratory tests have proven a life expectancy of 250 years and indicate that archival paper can have a life expectancy exceeding 500 years.
If the Clerk's memorandum has a fault, it is there—it is far too conservative, although I hate to label the Clerk as one of the dark forces of conservatism. The House should consider how paper can last and, indeed, has lasted—I am talking about true paper, as invented by the Chinese in the first century AD, rather than about papyrus, which was invented even earlier.
The British Library contains paper documents from the Han dynasty; although they bear no specific date, they can be dated by association to between 25 AD and 220 AD, but let us be conservative and assume that they date from the end of that period. The documents are almost 1,800 years old—they are twice as old as Westminster Hall, three times as old as the earliest Act of Parliament in the House of Lords Record Office and they predate Magna Carta by 1,000 years. I yield to no one in my respect for the Acts that Parliament passes, but I suggest that that is a reasonable period of time for the original paper copy to last, given that we also have electronic support these days. Those of an historical bent might be interested to learn that the earliest complete and printed book in the world, the Diamond Sutra, is more than 1,100 years old. Record copies of Acts will be kept in proper archival conditions and, as with all House documents, they will be printed on paper with an alkali reserve to ensure that a non-acid pH balance will be maintained over the years.
Another factor that influenced the Committee's decision and which has not been called into dispute is that archival paper is considerably less bulky than vellum. That is an important consideration, given that storage space is finite, especially in the Lords Record Office, which, like many other archives, is getting short of space. When hon. Members raised the matter with her, the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who is the Chairman of the Committee, organised an illustration of the difference in thickness by comparing copies of the Finance Act 1998. The House will be aware that such Acts are rarely short: the vellum copy of the 1998 Act was three times as thick


as the paper version. The question of thickness will become even more important when Bills and Acts are printed in a larger typeface, as has been proposed. That welcome move will assist visually impaired Members of Parliament and others, but larger print will mean more pages—in the case of vellum, three times more.
On the question of cost, the Committee's report mentions savings of about £30,000 a year. Some hon. Members have described that as a derisory sum, but the Committee believes in principle that no sum accruing to the taxpayer is derisory and that if we can save money, we should.

Mr. White: Were the costs considered purely the costs to the House authorities?

Dr. Palmer: The cost is the raw cost of purchasing paper compared with the cost of purchasing vellum. However, £30,000 is not all that would be saved, as that is only the savings on the cost of raw material.
Because printing on vellum is highly specialised and because only one company in Britain does it, it is costly and we do not have the opportunity to take tenders for the contract to print Acts from printers other than the Stationary Office. If we print Acts on archival paper, genuinely competitive conditions for the award of new printing contracts could result in savings. The Committee anticipates that the savings thus secured would considerably exceed £30,000. I cannot quantify those savings, but I can state that, since 1993, the House authorities have been able to make savings of about £3 million in expenditure on publishing House documents. About one third of that saving has been made since the privatisation of HMSO. Although that move is not supported universally on other grounds, it must be acknowledged that House officials have been able to use the same competitive conditions that will apply if we introduce archival paper.

Mr. John Bercow: I am listening with rapt attention as the hon. Gentleman develops his argument. The anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) are well understood and respected on both sides of the House. Will the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) advise the House at what point in the process the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East apprised the Administration Committee of his concerns on behalf of his constituents?

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention: it is always a pleasure to have his rapt attention. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East approached the Committee as soon as he heard about the proposal and realised that it would affect a firm in his constituency. However, my hon. Friend is in a better position to answer that question.

Mr. White: I first heard about the proposal when I read the Committee's report.

Dr. Palmer: I am sure that my hon. Friend raised his concerns at the earliest opportunity. We acknowledge that he has been fighting extremely hard on behalf of the company in his constituency.
Against the background that I have mentioned, it may seem puzzling that distinguished libraries have recommended retaining vellum. Why are they so interested? Another factor has undoubtedly influenced their views; it is a five letter word: m-o-n-e-y. With the indulgence of the House, I shall quote from a letter that the Committee received from Trinity college, Dublin, which reads:
The availability of this material"—
that is, vellum—
at a price and quality our libraries and archives feel they can afford depends on the efficiency and productivity of the vellum makers … The half dozen skins that we"—
that is, the libraries—
purchase each year … will do little to sustain the craft or business … This indirect support"—
from the House—
will do much to aid our preservation work".
I understand that argument: if I were a chief librarian, I would wish to secure an effective subsidy from the House to help meet the costs of my library. The question is: should we force the taxpayer to subsidise our national libraries so that they do not have to pay the going rate for vellum?
I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that public money should be used to preserve our national treasures and to support libraries. However, let us support the libraries directly: let us not wrap up that support in a subsidy for vellum.

Mr. David Lidington: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments about libraries, can he assure the House that the conservation programme of the Public Record Office will not be adversely affected by the economic factors that he has described?

Dr. Palmer: I understand that the Public Record Office accepts that this proposal will result in a significant saving to the public purse. I have not spoken to its officers directly—I am slightly handicapped in that I am acting as deputy to the hon. Member for Broxbourne—but I understand that the cost to the Public Record Office will be more than compensated for by savings to the public purse.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise for not being in the Chamber to hear the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, but I am extremely interested in his concern for the public purse—it is interesting to hear a Labour Member express such a view. As the hon. Gentleman sets great store by a saving of £30,000 to the Exchequer, will he remind the House how much rooms across the road for Members of Parliament cost?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a very interesting point and the information is available, but it is not at all relevant to this motion.

Dr. Palmer: As much as I would like to answer the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I am, alas, unable to do so.
Hon. Members may say that we are getting rid of a tradition, but it is a tradition that can no longer be justified. The printing of Acts on goatskin should go the


same way as tally sticks and collapsible top hats. It is slightly ironic that the House of Lords, which one sometimes hears criticised for not being in touch with the modern world, readily accepted the proposals without a Division. Our constituents will react with total incredulity if the House rejects this motion and insists that our laws be inscribed on goatskin. That policy might be prestigious for a tribe of nomadic goatherds, but it is, frankly, bizarre for the Britain of today. To put it bluntly, such a decision would serve only to make this House look out of touch.
The Committee has carefully considered all the representations made and produced a concise, convincing report, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Robert Walter: I shall not delay the House for long in giving the Opposition's view that the resolution should be approved. The printing of Acts on vellum is an anachronistic practice that dates back to 1849. In October 1956, Madam Speaker, one of your predecessors was wise enough to institute a partial change by suggesting that private Acts should no longer be printed on vellum and deposited in the Public Record Office.
I shall be so bold as to suggest that the Opposition regard the move as part of the common-sense revolution. It is ironic that in these days of computers and electronic data storage, we should be debating the merits or otherwise of continuing to keep the work of the House stored on vellum. The case for change has been made admirably by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on behalf of the Committee. Vellum is very expensive, and the note by the Clerk of the House that is appended to the report suggests that printing last year's Finance Act alone on vellum cost nearly £12,000. That cost is increased by the necessity to place duplicate copies on vellum in the Public Record Office.
I do not know, and the hon. Member for Broxtowe did not mention, why, in 1985, his predecessor Committee rejected the proposal to extend the proposals to public Acts.

Dr. Palmer: I understand that the then Committee included an hon. Member in whose constituency there was a vellum manufacturer. He argued very forcefully against the proposals, and the matter was not proceeded with.

Mr. Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments because they probably make the case exceedingly well.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Far be it from me to interrupt the eloquence of his flow for long, but the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe are a source of anxiety to me because I have attended closely to the letter that I received from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). In paragraph 7 he informs me that he understands that the vellum producers nearest to those in his constituency are in France. I sense a split between Labour Members, and I would be grateful if that could be resolved as speedily as possible.

Mr. Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Unfortunately, I can throw no light on the question of where the nearest alternative source of vellum

is to be found other than the correspondence that I, too, have had with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White).

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Perhaps I may assist the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). As I understand it, representations were made in 1985 on behalf of a firm that manufactured vellum. That firm no longer exists. The firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) produces vellum. The impression that the House has been given that the nearest alternative supply of vellum is in France is correct.

Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for that clarification.
I said that I would not delay the House in giving the Opposition's view. We have no objection to the motion, and shall let the matter stand there.

Mr. Brian White: I apologise for the earlier confusion when I objected to the first motion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), I was in the computer industry before I entered this House, so I have no problem with the modern techniques of recording Acts. I have supported wholeheartedly the efforts of the Modernisation Committee to modernise the processes of the House.
I oppose the motion for three reasons: first, because of the way in which the matter was handled, to which I shall return; secondly, because I disagree with the Committee's arguments, which I hope to demonstrate are wrong; and thirdly, and most importantly, because the decision means the end of an industry in which Britain leads the world. I hope that, for each of those reasons, the House will support me in what I understand is a free vote, and reject the Committee's report, so that we can find a different way forward.
Committee members did not talk to the supplier until it was too late and they had made their decision. Let us take the issue of the Finance Bill, to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred. The House authorities asked for a certain quantity of vellum; it was supplied. Then, at very short notice, they asked for a considerable quantity more, demanding it within 24 or 48 hours. Any reasonable request could have been met.

Mr. Bercow: I reiterate that I understand and am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's legitimate anxieties. Will he clarify for the benefit of the House whether the company in his constituency was given any opportunity to make representations? If it was not, that would, at the very least, count as a rank discourtesy, and the hon. Gentleman would have every reason to be dissatisfied about it.

Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the supplier's feelings more eloquently than I can. The supplier has written several letters and received replies, but in a letter to me in September, he said:
I have tried to find out more about the reason behind the review of Vellum.


I cannot find any reason why the officials of the Public Bills Office were so 'determined' to hold the Press to its contract when there was no … reason.
It seems to him that there has been a campaign to end his contract; that it was a question of making a decision and then finding reasons for it. He is rightly upset about that. One of the things that worry me is the way in which the episode has been handled, because I do not think that it has been handled correctly. Many issues, such as those of cost, thickness and storage, could have been resolved in discussion with the supplier. There did not need to be a change of material.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that this important debate was not important. The jobs in his constituency are very important; I accept the arguments on behalf of his miners. The supplier is very important to an old part of my constituency, so I contend that this an important debate.

Dr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend asserting that, with further consultation, it would have been possible to reduce the bulk of vellum by one third and to eliminate all the extra cost?

Mr. White: I am saying that it would have been possible to reduce the thickness and costs. Whether that was what the Committee had in mind would have been resolved by discussion.
One of the arguments compared vellum with archival paper. I quote from a letter that I have received from the British Library:
my colleagues at the British Library were consulted about recommending an archival quality paper, which they were happy to do. I understand that they were not asked to compare the longevity of parchment with that of paper.
Therefore, the question that they were asked was not necessarily the one that should have been asked.
Equally, the Institute of Paper Conservation has said:
We are concerned by the Select Committee's statement that archival paper has a proven life expectancy of 250 years, possibly more.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe was right to say 500 years. The institute goes on:
It seems to ignore the more fundamental problem of finding and securing supplies of archival paper made to the high specification required.
Again, the House has been given only part of the story. It is possible to get the sort of quality from the paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred, but it comes at a cost. It is not a matter of going to the local branch of Staple's and picking up some paper. There are issues to be resolved on the question of high quality.
We have already heard that the recommendation is about achieving a saving to the House, but fundamental costs to libraries and to archives would increase, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe accepted.
When we compare longevity of 250 or 500 years with the 1,500 years of vellum, the cost of £30,000 pales into insignificance. The supplier has assured me that the thickness requirement is dictated by the House authorities. He could easily supply vellum at half the current thickness if he were asked to do so. New techniques are being developed all the time that improve the quality of vellum at a much thinner specification. Again, no one has

discussed that with him. It was taken as read that the current thickness was required. No one asked whether the vellum could be thinner.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe recognised that it is not an animal welfare issue. The calf skin is from animals that are already dead, or that would be used for other purposes—it is waste material.
It has been alleged that there is a short supply of vellum. Again, the evidence that I have would dispute that. One of the most fundamental suggestions in the report is that it is difficult to print on vellum, but that seems to ignore modern developments that mean that printing on vellum is possible from a standard ink-jet printer. If that can be done, there will be no problem in continuing to use vellum. Other people are not suggesting that there are printing problems with vellum.
I have a letter from Sotheby's, which suggests an idea for the House:
Would you like to borrow a piece of real medieval vellum? … If you were speaking about the durability of vellum and could exhibit a piece, you could virtually defy anyone in the House to tear it in half.
My notes are on vellum. Before I came into the Chamber, I offered them to the Government Whips and said, "If you want to rip them up, feel free to do so." As hon. Members can see, they were unable to tear them in half.
There is a fundamental reason for opposing the motion. Arguments in the Committee's report could be discussed. In fact, arguments on both sides could be discussed with the supplier. There is only one supplier in the country who deals with vellum; Britain leads the world in the sector. If we were to lose that supplier, an industry would be lost. The company has one major contract, on which all the others depend. It is sustained by its contract with the House—so that, in turn, it is able to supply vellum to its other clients, such as bookbinders, archives and museums. The contract also enables the firm to supply very small quantities of vellum to other clients, such as—as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said—the six pieces supplied to Trinity college.
We can save our vellum industry, and the unique skills practised in it. The National Library of Scotland stated:
This material is more durable and long lasting than even the archival papers in common use today. Archival papers are long lasting but they do not have the life of parchment/vellum and are yet unproven … If it is the intention to preserve the original records of state for as long as possible, then parchment/vellum should be the information carrier.
Christopher Clarkson, a conservator of library and archive materials, said:
I teach in many countries, including America, and I can in all honesty say that many workshops rely on England …
Your colleagues in Parliament may think that discontinuation of the use of parchment is an economy, but they must be made aware of the larger picture.
In the aftermath of the Florence flood disaster, the skills of many people were required. Subsequently, many of those skills have been lost. If the House cancels the contract, Britain will lose conservation, bookbinding and archival skills, and, in the years to come, we will come to rue the decision.
The National Library of Wales said:
Vellum is essential for the conservation of historic books and manuscripts, but it is used in far smaller quantities for conservation than when it is used for printing, and in my opinion the combined purchasing power of British conservators is insufficient to sustain the sole surviving British manufacturer of vellum.


The House may decide that making a £30,000 economy justifies destroying an industry—but such a decision would be wrong. We are again in danger of being penny wise, but pound foolish. If the company loses the contract and goes out of business, we shall be putting a dozen people out of work. Although that number of jobs lost—compared with those lost in the coal, steel or shipbuilding industries—is not great, we shall be losing entirely another industry and the skills that create products that we export around the world.
I ask the House to reject the report, so that we might find another solution. If we reject the report, we shall be able to continue discussions with the supplier on finding savings. If the report is accepted, we shall damage not only the company and my constituency, but—most of all—the United Kingdom.
I refer Opposition Members to today's editorial in The Times, which urges them to treat the matter with the importance that it deserves. I tell Conservative Members that, if last week's rhetoric meant anything, they should vote today to support a British industry that depends on British agriculture. Any Conservative Member who votes today to accept the report will only be exposing as rhetoric the statements that the official Opposition made last week.
I remind my colleagues that, when we were in opposition, we were unable to save the shipbuilding industry or the coal mines—which others had resolved to destroy. If we accept the report, we too shall be destroying an industry, albeit a small one.
We should deal with the matter properly. There should be proper consultation, so that we might find the best way forward and treat people decently. The proposal would make a small saving for a small number of people, but we would lose something important for everybody else.
I ask the House to reject the report and give us time to find a different way forward that does not destroy an industry. The nearest vellum producers are in France. Whether the other business would go there remains to be seen, but we would lose it for this country. I shall be pushing for a Division. We need to have further discussions to look at the wider picture and engage in joined-up thinking rather than just saving money for the House authorities at the cost of jobs and industries and increasing costs for libraries and other parts of the public sector. Please reject the report.

Mr. John Burnett: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) with considerable interest. I understand, and have some sympathy with, his legitimate constituency concerns. However, we support the Committee's recommendations and the resolution. They are in the interests of the economy and of the better running of the affairs of this House.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) may be pleased to know that he will not be the only one voting against the motion, because I—and, I believe, one or two of my colleagues—will support him. It is one of the tragedies of our time that the Government clothe every

change that they make with the word "modernise". That is held to be enough to uproot our traditions and change the way in which we do many things.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Is he aware that the proposal comes not from the Government, but from an all-party Committee chaired by his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)?

Mr. Howarth: Yes, I can read. I understand that this is a House matter and that the Whips will not be in evidence tonight. I am glad that this is a matter for the House to debate. I preface my remarks by saying that it is one of the tragedies of our time that the Government clothe everything with the word "modernise" and believe that that is sufficient justification for their actions. Some Committees of the House do the same. This is a case in point. We are told that we must modernise. Even my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that we have an antiquated arrangement.
I am a traditionalist. I believe in tradition, as do the people of this country. That is the first reason why I object to the conclusions of the report. The note by the Clerk of the House in the report says that the matter was considered in 1985. A similar proposal was agreed by the other place and was considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee. The note continues:
it is believed that Members took the view that the anticipated level of savings did not justify a departure from long-standing tradition.
I take the view that, if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. That is the foundation of tradition. I share the view of the 1985 Committee.
As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has said, it is not just the House that benefits from the 12 jobs in his constituency. University College Dublin has made representations to us because it derives some benefit. I thought that the Conservatives were in favour of cross-subsidisation. If the House can play a small part in helping to maintain a skill and tradition in this country that is not available elsewhere, save perhaps in France, we should take that into account. We should not lightly dispense with a skill available to this country that is of great value and practical assistance not only to University College Dublin, but to other institutions. We have long been admired for the way in which we conserve pictures and books. We need to maintain that, and should reject it only for good reasons.
The Committee and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) have referred to costs as one of the real reasons to depart from the recommendations of the Committee in 1985. It seems to be a rather small amount, worth about eight months' pay for one Member of Parliament. To use the terms of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, it is eight months of one Member for 12 of his constituents. I would not like to ask the House to anticipate which the public would see as the better deal. They would probably be prepared to dispense with any number of hon. Members for 12 of the hon. Gentleman's skilled constituents.
It is true that £30,000 is a lot of money but, set against the cost of the new building at Westminster—some £1 million per Member, I am told—£30,000 is not a lot to maintain a tradition, preserve skills and make available a service to museums and other conservators. That is a


small contribution that this House could make. People might think it odd that we are prepared to spend all that money on ourselves, while taking action that would put 12 of the hon. Gentleman's constituents out of work.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Cabinet were to take a further measure of pay restraint, the savings could be found by that route instead?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend presupposes that the Cabinet would be prepared to do that. According to the newspapers today, the Deputy Prime Minister—the trade union shop steward on behalf of the Cabinet—takes a dim view of such pay restraint. My hon. Friend nevertheless makes a good point in comparison.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made a strong case about the durability of vellum. I wonder how many hon. Members have taken visitors to the other place to see the showcase of significant Acts of Parliament and other parliamentary documents. One of my great delights in showing people those is to say, "That is not a facsimile, copy or replica. That is the Act of Parliament, dating back to 1497, which bears the signature of the King—and it survives to this day." I do not believe that that tradition should be tossed aside lightly.
People who see those documents are in awe. The death warrant of Charles I is there—not a copy or facsimile, but the actual document. Who is to say whether archival paper would survive for 300 or 500 years? The jury has to be out, and none of us will be here to act as the jury to find out whether it works. Therefore, we should not take a chance, and we should stick with vellum, which has proved that it can survive over time.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is a computer specialist. I understand that computers do crash, and that they are not made from such robust material as vellum. It would be a foolish House—which has the stewardship of these matters for future generations—to entrust the records of the proceedings of our times to a bit of plastic that might not stand the test of time, and to do so in the full knowledge that vellum does stand the test of time and has lasted for 500 years.

Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while it is right to be able to see the vellum next door, it is also right to be able to see the same Act of Parliament whether one is in Australia, Northumberland or wherever? The two go together; they are not incompatible.

Mr. Howarth: Yes, I accept that point.
This is a House of Commons matter, not a Government matter, but what has happened has been very much in the tradition of the way in which the Government like to handle matters. I believe in tradition. I see no good reason why we should dispense with vellum. Indeed, I see grave risks in our doing so and entrusting ourselves to the world of the computer. I shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The outside world will be looking on in amazement at our debate on this issue when, for instance, the debate on agriculture

was arbitrarily stopped at 7 o'clock the other night when numerous hon. Members still wanted to talk about the largest farming crisis since the 1930s.
My interests are declared in the Register: I was previously in the leather business and there is some connection with the trade in vellum. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I, too, believe in tradition. It is sad that we are wilfully throwing away a material that works. That is the first thing to be said in praise of vellum: it has worked since the middle ages. There is no track record of 500 or 1,000 years to let us know whether archival paper will work.
Why not leave matters where they stand? A few technical criticisms were thrown at vellum. As I understand it from the leather conservation centre in Northampton, vellum can be taken down to 0.4 mm to 0.5 mm. That is as thin as archival paper and would do the job just as well. There are no practical problems.
Cost has been spoken of, but let us consider the £30,000 against the £1 billion that the Government are spending on extra government in organisations, spin doctors and general hangers-on. It would probably not cover half the expense account for six months of one of the Government's more glossy and glamorous spin doctors. The easiest way of reducing the bill of £11,000 on the Finance Bill is to have a shorter Bill; it is far too long and far too much government is enacted in the House without enough scrutiny. I regret the fact that we are considering this issue rather than welfare, for example.
I shall vote for tradition and for keeping a material with a splendid track record going back to the middle ages, and one that keeps a tiny business in the constituency of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North—East (Mr. White) going. If the contract is withdrawn, I suspect that several of the 10 or a dozen people involved will be on the dole and the British taxpayer will pick up a larger bill than the £30,000 that this stingy, miserable, petty report says that we will save.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) for so ably moving the motion and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) for his spirited contribution.
This is clearly a matter for the House to decide. Last week, the House had the opportunity to discuss the history, tradition and precedence of parliamentary privilege. Today, we have the opportunity to discuss parliamentary history again. Many of our practices date from experience in the 19th century. Altering an 1849 resolution about the record copies of Acts is not something that we would want to do without mature consideration, and we have had some of that this afternoon.
I am aware of some hon. Members' concerns that this may not be the best use of parliamentary time, but it is essential that the legislation be enacted by the end of the Session if it is to take effect in time for the first Act of 2000. On 16 June, the other place approved the second report from the House of Lords Offices Committee, which recommended that the record copies of Acts of Parliament kept in the House of Lords Record Office should he printed on archival paper instead of vellum, with effect from the first Act of 2000.
It was also agreed that the supply of a duplicate copy for the Public Record Office should cease. The Public Record Office consented to that and believes that its services will not be affected.
We are indebted to the Administration Committee for looking into the matter, and it recommended that record copies of Acts should be preserved on archival paper rather than vellum. As we have heard, substantial cost savings can be made.
In the other place a fortnight ago, one peer said that he thought that the records should go straight to CD-Rom. Such is the pace of technological change that I imagine that—unlike its predecessor, the 1849 Act—any new resolution agreed in 1999 will not survive unamended for 150 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North—East referred to the effect of the change on a small firm in his constituency. I understand that it is the only firm in the United Kingdom with the necessary skills, and it is important to acknowledge the craftsmanship with which that firm has preserved our legislative work over all those years, and to thank it for that work. We should also acknowledge the service done by my hon. Friend over recent weeks in pursuing his constituents' case so vigorously.
Despite my hon. Friend's comments, and the concerns that he raised, it seems sensible to make the change in time for the first Act of Parliament of the next millennium. That would be a modest piece of modernisation in line with the Government's objective of improving the quality as well as the form of legislation, and I commend the report to the House.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond briefly to a couple of the points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made a passionate and effective defence of the interests of his local company. I have resolved that, if I am ever defeated in Broxtowe, I shall move to Milton Keynes, so as to get the benefit of my hon. Friend's advocacy.
On the specific issue of consultation, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Administration Committee tries to abide by the terms of the Ibbs report, which means that we rarely take evidence in open session. We ask the Officers of the House to make inquiries, to discuss matters and to correspond with companies, as was done in the case in question.
I confirm that members of the Administration Committee were apprised of the contents of the letters from William Cowley, and had the opportunity to bring the issue back to the Committee before the decision was published. We decided that we were still satisfied with the case.

Mr. White: How many times did the Committee discuss with the supplier the issues of substance in the report?

Dr. Palmer: As I said, the Committee does not normally take direct evidence in session from companies

or individuals, but our officers corresponded with the supplier; as my hon. Friend will know, there was a substantial correspondence on the subject.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: How long has the firm been under contract to the House?

Dr. Palmer: I am afraid that I do not have that information, but I shall be happy to supply the hon. Gentleman with it when I get hold of it after the debate.
As for durability, several hon. Members drew attention to the fact that, in principle, vellum will last for perhaps 1,500 years, and archival paper for between 500 and 1,000 years, or even, perhaps, 2,000 years. They argued that that was the crucial element. However, as I said earlier, the important question is not only the survival of the original documents but the security with which documents are kept, and the availability of computer back-up.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said that that was not a viable argument because computers crash. However, Members who work more actively with computers will agree that storage, especially storage of documents available on the internet, is not affected by the crash of any individual personal computer such as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members may own. We are talking about long-term storage with thorough back-up facilities, as thorough as those used by the Bank of England or other established bodies to secure the long-term viability of data.
Several hon. Members suggested that £30,000 is not a very large sum. Opposition Members attempted to ride with the hounds and run with the fox by attacking the Government for alleged overspending while recognising that the report is from an all-party Committee. I pointed out earlier that the availability of many more firms able to work with archival paper is likely to produce substantial savings of a kind that will be familiar to Opposition Members. It is unfortunate that they have presented their case as a partisan attack on the Government, and that approach will not benefit them in the vote.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and the hon. Member for Aldershot that it would be a shame to lose our foothold in an industry in which Britain is a leader in the world. Valuable though it may be to be the leader in the world in printing on goatskin, if we are unable to sustain the industry except by subsidising it with unnecessary orders from Parliament, the industry is not sustainable. I believe that that is the view of Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers, and of most hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not in the business of preserving industries merely for the sake of it.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am concerned by my hon. Friend's reference to subsidy. Does he agree that several valuable industries have been sustained by subsidy and that Britain remains an industrial nation as a result?

Dr. Palmer: My hon. Friend's point would lead us into a broader political debate, but I agree with him that key industries have effects on other industries and need to be preserved during difficult times so that they can survive in the longer term. I suggest that the printing of documents on goatskin is not one of them. I note also that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes,


North-East mentioned the need to support British agriculture, but I understand that the goatskins in question come not from Britain but from Morocco.

Mr. White: My hon. Friend has referred to goatskin throughout the debate, but it is calfskin that is used.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for that correction. In any event, the skins in question do not come from British cows.
The hon. Member for Aldershot, who is the authoritative voice in this House of the 19th century—and earlier centuries—noted the value of the death warrant of Charles I. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that any future royal death warrants will not be put on archival paper. The motion refers only to Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful for that explanation. However, should some measure that is not an Act of Parliament require the approval of the House, from where will we get the material?

Dr. Palmer: In the event of a future royal death warrant or other matter, we might exceptionally violate the call of the Leader of the Opposition and import the material from France.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) argued that Finance Bills are too long. That is a non-party issue, which goes beyond the current debate, but I suggest that the way to shorten Finance Bills is not necessarily to preserve them on animal skin.
The hon. Gentleman also pleaded the case of tradition. Let me give a serious response to the arguments about preserving tradition. I do respect the traditions of the House and those of the country. I believe that we should support traditions that are in keeping with our concept of Britain today, but to preserve a tiny industry that prints on animal hide for the sake of tradition alone does not seem to me sensible, and would not be understood by our constituents as sensible.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 121.

Division No. 279]
[5.6 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foulkes, George


Allen, Graham
Heald, Oliver


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hill, Keith


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Boateng, Paul
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Breed, Colin
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Burnett, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Caplin, Ivor
Kirkwood, Archy


Chaytor, David
Lock, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
McAvoy, Thomas



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morley, Elliot


Cotter, Brian
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Darvill, Keith
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Dowd, Jim
Pope, Greg





Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Quinn, Lawrie
Tyler, Paul


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Walter, Robert


Ruane, Chris
Webb, Steve


Sarwar, Mohammad
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stunell, Andrew
Dr. Nick Palmer and


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Andrew Miller.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Harris, Dr Evan


Amess, David
Healey, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Heppell, John


Barnes, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bercow, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Best, Harold
Iddon, Dr Brian


Betts, Clive
Jamieson, David


Blunt, Crispin
Jenkin, Bernard


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Khabra, Piara S


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brady, Graham
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Leigh, Edward


Butler, Mrs Christine
Lepper, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Leslie, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Clapham, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
MacShane, Denis


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
McWalter, Tony


Clelland, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Coleman, Iain
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Connarty, Michael
Meale, Alan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Moffatt, Laura


Cox, Tom
Mountford, Kali


Cunliffe, Lawrence
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
O'Hara, Eddie


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Olner, Bill


Davidson, Ian
Paice, James


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
 Paterson, Owen


Dawson, Hilton
Pike, Peter L


Dismore, Andrew
Pollard, Kerry


Dobbin, Jim
Pound, Stephen


Donohoe, Brian H
Powell, Sir Raymond


Edwards, Huw
Prosser, Gwyn


Efford, Clive
Rapson, Syd


Etherington, Bill
Robathan, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Rogers, Allan


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Rooney, Terry


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Salter, Martin


Flight, Howard
Sanders, Adrian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sawford, Phil


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Gapes, Mike
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gardiner, Barry
Soames, Nicholas


Gerrard, Neil
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Stringer, Graham


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Grant, Bernie
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Grieve, Dominic
Vis, Dr Rudi


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Wareing, Robert N


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Watts, David






Wells, Bowen



Whitehead, Dr Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Brian White.

Question accordingly negatived.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew George be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Richard Livsey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Fabricant be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Miss Julie Kirkbride be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Paul Keetch be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Dr. Evan Harris be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. David Heath be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. David Chidgey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Dr. Jenny Tonge be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr. Nigel Jones be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Moore be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Sir Robert Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Yugoslavia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Had this debate started at 10 o'clock, I would have spoken for a succinct six minutes, and shared the time available with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I went in September to Serbia—the subject of this debate on the reconstruction of the Balkans—with my hon. Friend, and with Tim Gopsill of the National Union of Journalists and Bob Oram of Unison Manchester. However, as it is 5.17 pm, I should like to use the opportunity to talk quietly and seriously to my political friend of 30 years, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development. It is no use pretending that there are not deep and rancorous differences of opinion on the Balkan war between myself and the Secretary of State for International Development. What has actually been said can be left at that, although it would be nice if there were a reconsideration as time goes by.
The best way of presenting my case is to give a chronological description of the visit. The first question is who paid for it. Did the Serbs? No, they did not. We paid for it; in no way are we beholden to the Serbian Government.
Because Belgrade airport is covered by sanctions, we arrived, as everyone has to, at Budapest. One has to have transport provided by Serbian authorities, or one does not go. We were met by a senior official of the Serbian embassy in Budapest. That led to several interesting conversations. We were very blunt and said that dreadful things had happened; we never hid that. For example, there was a dreadful occurrence at Rachak. I report his reply to the House. He said that Rachak was awful, but that there had been a terrible occurrence at Waco and asked whether we would condemn a whole nation for what happened there? Would we arraign in court Mrs. Janet Reno, the Attorney-General of the United States, simply because a terrible thing happened?
I do not say that this is the whole story, but the Serbian people deeply resent the fact that they have been blamed when they have more refugees than anywhere else in Europe. Some put the figure at 800,000, some at more than 1 million, starting with the 200,000 Krajina Serbs. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will deal at some length with the refugees, so I shall leave that and consider what happened on our first visit, which was to Novi Sad.
We were met by Professor Budhakov, who got his doctorate at the university of Nashville in the United States and went on to do research at the university of Pittsburgh. There were no language problems and no deep-seated hatred of the west or anything of that sort. Here was a man who was deeply hurt at what had happened. My hon. Friend the Minister has not had the opportunity of going to Novi Sad; I understand that. It is not only that there are bridges down over the Danube. Pictures cannot convey the sheer horror of seeing those bridges dumped there.
That point leads me to my first question: what do the Government think that our obligations are to the countries that lie on this greatest of European arteries? I refer to Bulgaria and Romania in particular. Later, we went to the


ministry of reconstruction in Belgrade. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will bear out the fact that the people there said the bridges would not be cleared until they got a clear offer on the table in deutschmarks, not only for clearance but for reconstruction costs.
I understand that eight major bridges were destroyed out of the 11 targeted. One cannot be certain about the costs, but I saw an estimate that the cost of destroying them was about £6 million. We were given a rough estimate of £10 million per bridge for reconstruction. In my opinion, and this was also the opinion of my colleagues, the Serbs are determined not to mend the bridges until NATO comes up with a clear, watertight, firm offer that payment will be made.
Secondly, what happens in the winter, when the ice forms? What happens when there is severe flooding down river, as we have been told could occur? I hope that, in his answer—like me, he will have plenty of time—my hon. Friend the Minister will make some serious comments on the state of negotiations between the British Government and the Danube commission.
However, the worst thing at Novi Sad was not the bridges; it was the bombing of the oil refinery. I repeat the question that was eloquently put by the Finn, Dr. Pekka Haavisto. He asked whether, in modern warfare, it is really acceptable to bomb oil refineries and chemical complexes. We must answer that question. At the oil refinery at Novi Sad, no one knows how long the ammonia, benzene, chlorine, mercury, phosgene, pyralene, and many other chemicals and chemical compounds will last; no one knows where they have gone, and how they got into the Danube water. It is not merely a matter of what happens just after the bombing; the chemicals get into the silt at the side of the river, and can last for an extremely long time. I hope that the Minister's brief contains some scientific advice as to the effect on groundwater.
We have turned an awful, local crisis into a Balkan catastrophe. As my notes confirm, the Prime Minister and other Ministers repeatedly stated from the Dispatch Box that we would rebuild the Balkans. As of the end of September, there was not much sign of that in Serbia. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has been to Kosovo and will talk about Kosovo. Perhaps the Government have a good story to tell—as they perceive it—but very little is happening in relation to Serbia. Whether we like it or not, Serbia was the economic engine of the Balkans. How one can rebuild the Balkans without rebuilding Serbia is beyond the imagination.
At Novi Sad, we came across the first instance of the taste of unemployment. In the second city of Yugoslavia, we were told that 30,000 people were now out of work; many were earning only two fifths of the not very great wages that they received before the start of the conflict. The economic situation is horrendous. The following day of our visit was—if anything—even worse. We arrived in Belgrade, late at night, and, in the morning, were taken to the motor vehicle factory at Zastava, about 100 miles south of Belgrade. That was the site of the motor and vehicle industry, manufacturing the Yugo, not only for the whole of Yugoslavia, but for areas beyond that country.
I have some notion about motor vehicle factories; for 25 years of my life as a Member of Parliament, I was immersed in the problems of the British Leyland truck and tractor division at Bathgate. To put it bluntly, I know my way around motor vehicle factories.
The area of Zastava was seven times greater than that of the plant at Bathgate. I do not pretend that it was the most modern motor vehicle factory on the face of the planet: by modern motor vehicle production standards, much of the machinery was rather old and we saw none of the robots or other technology used at Sunderland and Dagenham. Nevertheless, that machinery provided the bread and butter for 130,000 workers. We had a long session with the trade union representatives, whom I found to be both sad and impressive. They wondered what the winter would bring to a town in an area that is wholly dependent on the motor industry—where else were they to obtain the means to support themselves?
What are our obligations, if any, in the rebuilding of that motor industry? I do not know any western motor company that would look at Zastava and I suspect that the machinery is not repairable. There is a vast number of unemployed skilled people in the middle of central Europe. We were told repeatedly throughout the conflict that it was taking place in Europe and that we had an obligation. The point was made that, unlike Chechnya, Yugoslavia is so near to us that we had an obligation to act. What are we going to do about the massive problems at Zastava?
Is there to be some sort of conference, as the trade union leaders would like? They asked us, semi-humorously, but in earnest, where better for an international conference such as we were promised to be held than on the site of the Zastava plant?

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for interrupting the flow of his speech, but I have a point of order that is relevant to the end of the Adjournment debate. On Wednesday, the House is to have a guillotine motion on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and there is some suggestion that the Government are modifying the way in which they will deal with certain clauses relating to national insurance for those working through a limited company—it is known as IR35 in general parlance. I have been contacted by constituents and others asking what the Government's intentions are—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is not a point of order to be dealt with now, but a matter to be debated when those issues come before the House.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order. We should return to the Adjournment debate, which is on an important matter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without intending any discourtesy to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), may I ask on what occasion the


Government will be able to make available to the House the information that they will otherwise introduce on Wednesday in a guillotine motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter to be dealt with by me at this stage of this evening's business.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Bottomley: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely different point of order?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes. At the end of this debate, the House will have adjourned and there will be no opportunity available to the Government today; that leaves only tomorrow, Tuesday. Hon. Members and those outside the House will have only overnight to consider any proposals the Government make. It would be appropriate for Ministers who have heard these exchanges to consider the matter and return to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that Ministers on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but that is not a matter for me at this time.

Mr. Dalyell: We returned from Zastava to Belgrade the following day. It is incredible what technological weapons have done to a modern European capital such as Belgrade. We experienced great difficulty repairing parts of Manchester after the bomb damage there. It cost £60 million to repair the Bishopsgate building. Throughout the centre of Belgrade, huge, solid buildings of the Austro-Hungarian empire are reduced to unsafe rubble and twisted metal.
Is the Serb capital city to remain in that state? If so, we have some moral obligations; if not, who will start paying for it? Will there be an international effort, or will we leave Belgrade to deteriorate and thus become infinitely more expensive to repair and a greater technical problem than it otherwise would have been? Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that we have such obligations? We must always bear in mind that the House was told time and again that we had no quarrel with the people of Serbia. On that basis, the House—apart from very few of us—assented to military action. Therefore, I am entitled to probe Government thinking.
Our first meeting in Belgrade was with Dr. Leposana Milicevic, the Minister of Health, who is a distinguished doctor. She told us that we should not imagine that the graphite bombs aimed at power stations simply knocked out the power for a short time; they created all sorts of other problems. Those for the health service were incredible. For example, Dr. Milicevic told us that 4,000 people were on kidney dialysis. What happens when not only the main but the auxiliary power supplies are knocked out?
All sorts of other medical problems were pointed out to us. For example, hospitals were hit. I do not doubt that that was unintentional, and I appreciate that much of the precision bombing was remarkably precise, but collateral

damage is inevitable. We must consider whether modern aerial warfare is justified in the long term when one has no quarrel with the people of the country being bombed. That was the basis on which the bombing commenced.
We visited the Red Cross in Belgrade, and its presentation made it clear that we must confront collateral damage and not only short-term, but long-term damage. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, the representative of Unison and I think that the problems in hospitals are likely to be acute for a long time, not only because of the damage done to medical cases, but because of the trauma effect. The bombing that took place night after night was traumatic for a whole generation.
How does the west intend to mend its fences with the Serb people? The answer might be, "They brought it all on themselves", but I do not think that the problem is as simple as that. There are two sides to the story. My hon. Friend the Minister may deal in some depth with the reports in the Sunday press yesterday that suggested that the numbers of those executed in Kosovo were markedly fewer than were claimed in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's statement to the House, which suggested that there had been mass genocide. I am not jumping to conclusions, but there will be a briefing on yesterday's reports in The Sunday Times. Will the Minister give us the Government's reaction to the briefing? Is The Sunday Times justified in saying that the number of people executed was markedly fewer than the Foreign Secretary asserted, or was my right hon. Friend justified in talking in terms of genocide?
We must also consider a Serb view of events, so I shall describe what was said to us and ask for a Government comment. The Serbs said that the Albanians, who live in very large families, made group decisions to send one or two family members to Germany. In Germany, they worked as Gastarbeiter where they earned—let us say—DM2,000 a month. They lived very frugally and the overwhelming proportion of that money was remitted to their Albanian families. Therefore, a family soon had sufficient deutschmarks to buy a house in a village in Kosovo. When the Serb owner of a house refused the first offer of market value, the Albanians said that they would offer double the market value. That was very tempting, because such an offer would enable a Serb family to buy a house in Belgrade, send a child to the university there and better themselves.
That process was repeated once or twice in the same village. As the Albanians came in, other houses could be bought quite easily at market price and the rest would be sold dead cheap because, by that time, the Serbs felt that they had to get out. Their children were bullied at school and they faced all kinds of social pressures. Therefore, the cradle of Serb civilisation—whether we like it or not, that is how the Serbs see it—systematically went over to what I was going to call Albanians. However, I had better be careful. In general, the Kosovo Albanians were not blamed, because people who had come from Albania—they had doubtless fled from the odious Enver Hoxha—took over that part of Kosovo. I mention that, because the question is not one of good and bad; it is one of varying shades of grey. Therefore, simply to say that the Serbs deserved all that they got is just not the reality.

Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend mentioned the report in The Sunday Times. I suggest that he looks at yesterday's edition of The Observer,


which describes in graphic detail the horrifying atrocities that were committed by Serb paramilitaries against innocent people—why our intervention was absolutely necessary. My hon. Friend spoke about the Serbians feeling out-manoeuvred by Kosovo Albanians, but does he not realise that that is precisely the same argument used in this country by racists and white supremacists, who talk of being swamped, and so on, by immigrants who are undermining British culture and British civilisation? In giving the Serb point of view—the Milosevic point of view, to be more accurate—he is giving the impression that he is campaigning on what the racists, from whom I know he dissociates himself, have been campaigning over many years in our country.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that it is as simple as that. The people who made such complaints were as anti-Milosevic as one could find. They had demonstrated, day after day, in the streets of Belgrade. I wish that they had had rather more help from the west when doing so some years ago.
The problems of the Balkans are not in black and white. This debate is about the future. I am trying to pre-empt the argument that the Serbs deserved all that they got. That is not a fair way of looking at a very complex problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I assure my hon. Friend that he does not need to pre-empt that argument because I do not intend to advance it.

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad that we have got that out of the way, because certain people in the press have put around, "Hell mend the Serbs! As long as they keep Milosevic, we have no obligations." I think that we have some obligations, and it is the purpose of this Adjournment debate to try to elicit what they are.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for being so generous in sharing his debate with me. I endorse many of his comments, particularly those on the demonisation of the Serbs and the way in which they have been blamed—quite unfairly—for every ill in the Balkans.
On Thursday, in business questions, I raised the persecution of Serbs, and called for a debate. We had just read the latest story of a column of 150 Serbs who were leaving Kosovo when they were attacked, and their vehicles set alight, by ethnic Albanians. Hansard is incorrect: I said, and should like to put on record, that nearly 1,000 people had been killed or abducted since the KFOR occupation, but Hansard states 100.
As my hon. Friend said, I went with him and other colleagues to Serbia to see first hand the effects of the NATO bombings on the civilian population and to get some idea of the need for humanitarian aid and economic reconstruction. That was necessary because the plight of Serbia proper has been almost entirely ignored by the media. Western Governments have imposed sanctions that have been designed specifically to prevent the

reconstruction of civilian infrastructure, even though, as my hon. Friend said, we were constantly told that the war was not aimed at the ordinary Serbian people.
We were told that the sanctions were imposed for specific reasons. According to a House of Commons Library briefing that I received today, the British Government imposed sanctions unilaterally and participated in the multilateral imposition of sanctions under the auspices of the United Nations and the European Union. The reason behind the imposition of sanctions by the UN, the EU and the British Government has always been linked to a lack of democratic government and grave human rights abuses by the Government of Serbia. Further, the current basis for the EU sanctions, at least against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is laid out in the most recent regulation, which was adopted by the Council on 4 October, amending the prohibition of the sale and supply of oil and oil products.

Mr. David Heath: The hon. Lady is reaching a point that I wanted to touch on. She knows that I do not entirely agree with her and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the conduct of the conflict, but the Balkan winter is as cold for Serbs as it is for Kosovan Albanians. What assessment was she able to make of the adequacy of fuel supplies to enable people to get through the winter with reasonable heating? Does the sanctions regime need to be amended further to enable that to happen?

Mrs. Mahon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall talk about that later, but, clearly, oil sanctions are hitting hard. We have some graphic photographs of people having to buy petrol to get to Kragujevac and other places. There is none in state petrol stations. People have to buy it on the black market, on the street corner. It was interesting because almost everyone selling it was smoking a cigarette, as were the people buying it. I have photographs of that and it was horrifying. There are serious implications for heating, for hospitals and for everything else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said.
On the legal basis for sanctions, the EU cites as justification continued violations by the Yugoslav Government of UN resolutions and the pursuit of extreme and criminally irresponsible policies, including repression against its own citizens, which constitutes serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.
Can we have some examples? What on earth does that mean? What precisely are the continued violations by the Yugoslav Government of the UN Security Council resolutions? Can the Minister give us examples because, at the moment, the people who are being persecuted, killed, having their homes burned and who are being made into refugees are the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo. Nearly 100,000 have been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo since the NATO occupation.
The Minister will be aware of the demonstrations by Opposition parties in Yugoslavia, which want early elections. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but those demonstrations take place regularly and freely. I have not seen any of the over-the-top policing that I saw the other week when the Chinese President came to this country. Peaceful protesters were treated in a fairly rough manner by our police.
A friend of mine, a member of the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, went to Serbia after we went. She attended four demonstrations. She said:
In spite of media reports to the contrary, we witnessed no beatings and no police brutality.
She said that she saw one or two fights in the crowds and the police stopped them, but she witnessed no beatings or police brutality. She took photographs. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) can choose to believe that, or not. A very good friend of mine, whom I trust, saw it with her own eyes. When we were in Serbia, we witnessed no police brutality.
We are told by the west that there are no political prisoners—certainly, Amnesty International is not badgering us about political prisoners in Yugoslavia. The opposition media operate with restrictions, but they are no greater—I have been looking the details up; I am a member of the North Atlantic Assembly—than some that we found when we visited Croatia in April 1998. At that time, we met the opposition media there, who complained about the state-run media and described what a bad time they were having. We recommended that Forum 21, the opposition media, be given more freedoms and should not be harassed, and that Croatia did something about the lack of press freedom there.
It is the hypocrisy of the west sometimes that needs to be exposed, and this is the place to expose it. On political prisoners, during a visit by the North Atlantic Assembly to Turkey in February 1998, we tried to see the members of Hadep, who were Members of the Turkish Parliament, who were sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment on charges of separatism and membership of a terrorist organisation. Immunity was lifted and they were sent to prison.
Those members include Lena Zana, the recipient of the Sakharov prize for human rights of the European Parliament and a well-known campaigner for the rights of the Kurds. The unconditional release of Mrs. Zana and her colleagues has been demanded by several interparliamentary organisations, including the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as well as the European Parliament. There is something seriously wrong when we live with that and carry on dialogue with the Turkish Government, despite all the human rights abuses that we have seen there, including the imprisonment of elected representatives, yet bring that out about the Yugoslav Government.
Sanctions do hurt ordinary people. There will be enormous suffering in Yugoslavia this winter. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has confirmed that Yugoslavia has the largest concentration of refugees in Europe. We visited some; we visited some of the Roma people. They include not just Serbs from Kosovo—Yugoslavia has hundreds and thousands of Serbs from the Krajina, Serbs from Bosnia, and also other minorities.
We visited Roma in the camp. I do not like going to refugee camps. I hate staring at people who are already living in absolute misery. It is a dreadful thing to do, but sometimes we have to make ourselves do it. Lots of people visited the refugee camps in Kosovo. I thank NATO. It was fairly well organised after the initial bad start, but people are not getting that sort of help in Serbia. Some groups do not naturally have a family in Serbia—not only Roma, but Turks, Bosniaks and Jews. Jews are being expelled. Can hon. Members believe that, in this day and age, Jewish families have had to leave Kosovo because it was not safe and because they were warned?
We visited those people. It is difficult to do. They are living in converted school rooms, barracks and factories. Entire families have been squeezed into single-room accommodation. Many were expelled from the Krajina and Bosnia; they have been there for years and their plight is difficult.

Mr. Winnick: I have much admiration for my hon. Friend, but it saddens me that she has allowed herself, in many respects, to act as a spokesperson for the regime in Serbia. I would be glad to have her comments on the following point. Milosevic instigated wars that have led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. He lost those wars, and the Serbian people, to a large extent, as well as others, are paying the penalty.
With regard to the position in Serbia, I draw her attention to the murder of a journalist during the conflict, a murder that was undoubtedly instigated by the Belgrade authorities. No effort has been made, understandably, to find the murderers. It would be useful if the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, of which she is the chair, denounced such crimes and put the blame for them, as well as for what has happened in the past eight or nine years, where it belongs—on a Milosevic clique.

Mrs. Mahon: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend, as some of his remarks were unworthy of him. He knows perfectly well that any committee that I might belong to would condemn murder, and I am outraged that he thinks that the situation might be otherwise. I hope that, on reflection, he will decide to apologise for those remarks.
The press has ignored the plight of the hundreds of thousands of refugees in Serbia. Although all the refugees are not Serbs—there are many other minority groups among the refugees—Serbs comprise the vast majority of them, and the conditions in which they are living are very bad. Many of the refugees have no family support and, unfortunately, are receiving very little help from aid agencies.
Will the Minister tell the House what aid the Department for International Development is giving to the Yugoslav Government? The Yugoslav Government have to deal with the victims not only of the recent NATO war, but of the previous war—in which the Croats, with NATO's help, expelled hundreds and thousands of people from the Krajina. I have seen those refugees for myself; shamefully, the Red Cross seemed to be the only aid agency helping them. Red Cross workers told us that their soup kitchens are able to feed only a third of the worst-off refugees—100,000 of 300,000 people.
Another problem, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned, is power cuts. Although there were power cuts while we were there, the problem will become much worse as temperatures drop and the demand for power grows.
The power shortages caused directly by NATO's bombing are seriously affecting health care in Yugoslavia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, heating for homes and hospitals has been curtailed. Schools will also have to close because of power shortages. As we all know, elderly people will suffer as temperatures drop as low as minus 20 deg C.
Even The Guardian, which has been almost as warlike on the subject as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, has now said that sanctions should be eased. It is interesting that it should now be coming round to that view. It stated:
The US, ignoring the lessons of Iraq, continues to insist that tough economic sanctions, including fuel oil, must be maintained. It believes this will spur the Serbian populace to mass revolt as winter exacerbates its misery.
The Guardian, like everyone else who thinks about the matter, concludes that the Serbian people will have to try to survive the winter and that all their energies will be spent in attaining that one goal. Nevertheless, we are very grateful for its support in calling for sanctions to be lifted.
About £52 million has gone to help refugees in Kosovo, with which I shall deal in a moment as I was fortunate enough to visit it in late September. Although that money is desperately needed in Kosovo, where the housing situation is awful—people must have decent accommodation to cope with the winter—it dwarfs the aid that has been provided to Serbia. It is disgraceful that, although everyone knows about Serbia's huge refugee problem, people who raise money for Kosovo say not a word about the Serbs. The west really will have to answer for the way it has demonised the Serbs, almost creating a hatred of them, so that we do not think of them as deserving.
What miserable Serb-hating group dreamed up the policy of providing oil only to Serbian cities that vote for Opposition parties? It takes a sick mentality to think that because a town votes in a certain way, its children and its sick and elderly people should starve in freezing temperatures, whereas those voting in another way should have access to oil.
It is absolutely sickening that, in the oil for democracy scheme, the European Union should try to boost Serb Opposition parties by promising that, if President Milosevic were ousted from power, it would not only rapidly lift sanctions but, after five years, press Croatia to take back Serb refugees. Although Croatia has been a member of the Council of Europe since the Krajina Serbs were expelled, Europe has only now decided to press the Croatians to take back the refugees. I wonder what Europe has been doing meanwhile about Croatia's continuing disgraceful treatment of Serbs.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the hon. Lady conclude that the continuation of sanctions against Serbia has more to do with the ousting of Milosevic than with any other single objective? Why else should we be continuing to impose sanctions?

Mrs. Mahon: I do not think that Milosevic will be ousted soon. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that that is the main objective of sanctions. If that is not the main objective, we would simply be taking revenge against 10 million people.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has been to Kosovo, and I have not; nevertheless, I have been told by responsible people—senior people in the British Army—that the situation in Kosovo is such that only the Irish Guards conduct night patrols; that, without night patrols,

one cannot provide any protection of Serb minorities; and that only elite units of British regiments are doing anything to fulfil the undertaking that Serb minorities will be protected—for, without night patrols, we can do nothing. Although I understand perfectly well Mr. Bernard Kouchner's remark that we cannot put a soldier or policeman behind every Serb in Kosovo, nevertheless, the general situation is such that the impression has been given that KFOR is either unable or unwilling—or a bit of both—to provide protection to such Serbs as remain.

Mrs. Mahon: I am able to confirm what my hon. Friend says about the Irish Guards being the only group to conduct night patrols, because, on my visit, I made a point of speaking to some of those soldiers. I think that it is a good idea to talk to the ordinary soldiers, and not only to those who give the briefings—with which I shall deal shortly.
The sanctions are a crime against humanity and should be lifted immediately. As the war continued, the civilian infrastructure was smashed deliberately by NATO bombs, to terrorise the civilian population. More than 1,500 Serb civilians were killed, and 4,000 were injured. There was damage to 27 hospitals and clinics, and I have a photograph and a dossier on each of them. Although it was called collateral damage, the fact is that schools, factories, bridges, roads and Government buildings were destroyed. The damage amounted to £40 billion.
Kragujevac—which is home of the destroyed car factory described by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—was hit by 22 cruise missiles, injuring 120 people and utterly destroying the living not only of the factory's 36,000 workers, but of those who worked in the 47 factories supplying it with components. The devastation has affected the livelihood of more than 120,000 people living in the area.
Kragujevac's local health centre was one of the medical centres damaged. The town relies on the factory's power plant for winter heating. We were told that the whole city has stopped, that people are living on Government hand-outs, and that refugees are still pouring in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said, all its hospitals have been affected by power shortages: dialysis machines are not working; powered wheelchairs have stopped; incubators do not work; operations have been cancelled; and children and elderly people who have been traumatised by the bombing are suffering badly.
I visited Kosovo on 25 September as part of the North Atlantic Assembly. My conclusion from that visit—which was not denied by anybody we spoke to—was that Kosovo was being ethnically cleansed of all minorities. We hear different figures. UNHCR said that 50,000 Serbs and other ethnic minorities had left Kosovo, KFOR said nearly 100,000 and somebody else said 120,000. I think that the generally accepted figure is around 100,000. The scale of the ethnic cleansing, with daily murders, arson attacks and other accompanying forms of intimidation, led us to conclude that KFOR is not protecting the minorities. It did not pretend to us that it was.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North talked about the journalist who was killed. I condemn that out of hand. I should like him to condemn an unprovoked attack in the centre of Pristina on a United Nations peace worker, who was taken away by the mob and shot in the head because when somebody asked him the time he


answered in Serbo-Croat. He was killed simply for speaking that language. The hatred is not all on one side and both sides have many things to answer for.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady will understand that those of us who are here do not want to affect the debate or criticise what she or her hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) have said. However, I should like to point out that over the past eight years Mr. Milosevic and Serbia have carried out a succession of military interventions in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, with the threat of going beyond that. The context of the debate is that Mr. Milosevic ordered his forces into Kosovo and eventually ordered them out again.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman is right. There was a war going on in Kosovo. The first research note in the House of Commons Library from before we went to war with Yugoslavia is even-handed about the Serbs and Albanians being killed. I recommend that paper to him, because it makes good reading. The Serb army was fighting the KLA in Kosovo. No member of the KLA has been indicted for war crimes. Indeed, Agim Ceku, the KLA commander who is being investigated for his role in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia, has recently been appointed to lead the so-called Kosovo protection force, which is just another name for the KLA. The appointment by the UN of a man who could well be indicted for war crimes is hardly calculated to reassure Kosovo's minorities that they will be safe.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to return to my hon. Friend's previous point about the UN official. His name was Valentin Krumov. The circumstances were outlined on 13 October by Laura Rozen on page 12 of The Independent. She says that he was brutally killed
as he went for a walk outside the Grand Hotel, on Pristina's main thoroughfare, and reportedly replied in Serbian when asked what the time was by a group of Albanians.
If officials or the Minister have some reference to make to that case, it would be helpful to have it at the end of the debate. If not, perhaps he could write to us.

Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I refer the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North to the second assessment of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe of the situation of ethnic minorities in Kosovo. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told us on 18 June to read the report about the atrocities committed by the Serbs against the Albanians. There is little difference between the two—they both involve people killing each other in the most horrible way. It does the debate no good if we fail to recognise that there were no good guys in the middle of the horrors of the break-up of Yugoslavia.
Our delegation in Kosovo met the some of the Albanian and Serb leaders, although unfortunately two key figures—a bishop and a priest—did not turn up. They have pulled out of the transitional council because of what is happening to the Serbs and other minorities, so I met only one of the Serb leaders. However, we met Hashim Thaci, the self-styled Prime Minister of Kosovo—a man whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rang up regularly to get information about what was happening in Kosovo. From the evidence in the Library of 52 reports

of killings and massacres received during the war, 42 were received from the KLA or the Kosovo press, which are hardly independent sources. As we know, some of those reports have since been proved to be lies.
We put questions to Mr. Thaci. We doubted that he was doing anything to stop the daily violence against the minorities, yet KFOR seemed to treat him as the Prime Minister in waiting. Opinion polls, including one in the Washington Post recently, say that Mr. Rugova, the moderate leader, has the majority of support, because the ordinary Albanians are sick of the violence that is being perpetrated on their behalf by the KLA.
We met Bernard Kouchner and other UN personnel, as well as senior representatives from the Serb and Albanian communities. We were also briefed by the German general Klaus Reinhart, who has just replaced Mike Jackson. We visited Mitrovica, where there is almost daily confrontation between Albanians and Serbs. There is still a fairly large Serb population in the north of Mitrovica. The saddest sights were the small groups of Serbs and other minorities who were surrounded by tanks. They were prisoners, sometimes in monasteries. They were not allowed to go out for fear of their lives, so they could not lead a normal life. If they ever went out, they were subjected to abduction or killing. The situation is very sad.

Mr. Dalyell: I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 August about Fergal Keane's description of the plight of the Kosovo Serbs. My right hon. Friend replied on 11 October:
When I visited Kosovo at the end of July I made a point of seeing the leaders of the Kosovo Serb community and reassuring them that the international community was opposed to ethnic intimidation and violence from whatever origin. I certainly did not 'tiptoe' around the issue as Mr. Keane suggests. In all my contacts with Kosovo Albanian and Kosovo Serb leaders I have left no doubt that nothing excuses ethnic cleansing and that there is no question of our tolerating such abuses.
That is a clear statement from the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
About 70 churches and monasteries have been damaged since the KFOR occupation. We went to Decani—a famous 13th century orthodox monastery where about 40 monks still live. During the bombing, they took in Albanians and looked after them, protecting them at some risk to themselves. For their troubles, they cannot leave the compound and the KLA has put them at the top of their list of targets for destruction. That is a sad story.
Since I came back, my Committee has issued a report. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right to say that Bernard Kouchner has said that he cannot put a soldier or policeman behind every Serb. He was pessimistic about the situation.
We heard a lot about the Albanian border, which was left completely unprotected, and arms are still pouring in. Drug trafficking has started again, and the mafia is very active. International representatives, both military and civilian, have said that they expect the risk of terrorism motivated by ethnic and other reasons to increase in the months to come. It is not a good report to put to the North Atlantic Assembly, and it was a sad visit altogether.
We have heard that there must be a democratic press in Yugoslavia before sanctions can be lifted. Yet the press in Kosovo—which is allowed to operate freely—recently


took a dangerous turn with an article condemning Veton Sorroi, a well-known moderate Albanian newspaper owner. The article called him a traitor to the Kosovo Albanian cause and warned that he is at risk of eventual and "very understandable" revenge. The article continued ominously that such "criminals" and "enslaved minds" should not have a place in a free Kosovo. That article created a storm, but the KLA—our allies, and those who would run Kosovo—defended the story, which was published widely in the region.
I wish to refer to the steady stream of revelations coming from Kosovo about the numbers of the dead. Every death and every massacre is to be condemned, whoever has committed it and under whatever circumstances—there is no excuse. All power to the International War Crimes Tribunal if it can find the perpetrators of some of those horrendous massacres. However, I would like to see some more even-handedness, and the same energy and commitment being applied to those who are committing murders and massacres now. I still hope that that will happen.
During the war, we were told by the Foreign Secretary and others why we needed to bomb Yugoslavia. We now find that the leader of the Spanish forensic team which has just returned from Kosovo has said
we did not find one—not one—mass grave.
I do not know how people define mass graves—I have read of places where 100 bodies have been found. However, the area given to the Spanish team did not contain one such grave.
The claims were extraordinary. I sat in this House when people referred to 150,000 Albanian men who were missing and who could be dead. The implication about their fate was made, and that did nothing to help reasoned debate. According to the Spaniard in charge, 187 bodies were found. He was told first to expect 44,000 bodies, and then 22,000. He was told that his team would be exhuming bodies until November, if not beyond. The figure of bodies was then reduced to 10,000, then to 2,000. Finally, they got down to the real figure, which was 187—many of whom had been killed by NATO bombing. Some had been shot, and some were prisoners in Istok prison, which had been bombed by NATO. He concluded:
A military action prejudices truth.
We were told that the Trepca mines—this story came up again and again and is referred to in the document put in the Library by the Foreign Secretary—contained 700 bodies. We now find that war crimes investigators found nothing in the shaft of a Kosovo mine where hundreds of bodies were rumoured to be hidden. Nothing was found—not even animal bones. That rumour clouded opinion, and made people less concerned about the effects that the bombing was having on a civilian population—a population that had not declared war on NATO. It has been a terrible tragedy.
My Government and NATO were wrong to bomb Yugoslavia, and history will prove that they were wrong. It has done nothing to help the situation in Kosovo. It has been a tragedy for the surrounding countries, such as Montenegro and Macedonia, which have been destabilised. The Danube has been blocked, and the countries will suffer as the blockage causes floods and continues to interrupt trade. There is also the tragedy of pollution.
Cluster bombs are now killing more people—those who have returned—than during the offensive. Children are having limbs blown off, and 14,500 of those bombs are still to be demined. What we have in Kosovo is a tragedy.

Mr. Dalyell: It was reported under the byline of Robert Fisk in The Independent on 16 October that
Pekka Haavisto, chairman of the UN's Balkan environment task force, says NATO refused to co-operate with his team and that immediate action is necessary to obtain information from NATO confirming if, how and where, DU"—
depleted uranium—
was used during the conflict.'
Did NATO refuse to co-operate with Haavisto and his team?
My hon. Friend referred to pollution. Has the Department for International Development looked at the analysis of the environmental damage caused by the bombing of chemical and petrochemical industries in Pancevo and Novi Sad. Following a visit to Belgrade by the World Wide Fund for Nature from 27 July to 29 July, a full and detailed report was produced. I shall not read it out, but it is important that the Department looks at this matter—particularly at the chemical reactions at Pancevo.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend knows that I saw the bombing of Pancevo. The soil was polluted, and some of the pollution has seeped into the waterways. That will be a problem for future generations. We must also get rid of the cluster bombs which, after all, are just land mines that are dropped from the sky. Their legacy remains for years afterwards.
I am not certain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is the right Minister to be replying to this debate. I wish the Foreign Secretary had been here, as many of the things that we have referred to concern his Department. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I too will be watching the programme from Mr. Sweeney about the smiling killer. I am horrified when I see pictures and articles about Kosovo's numbers game. I think that there was such a game, and that it was sad. It clouded the truth, and we should all be against that.
I have pictures and stories about children killed by NATO bombs, and they do not make for pretty reading—nor does the story of the column of 75 men, women and children who were killed while fleeing either bombing or ethnic cleansing.
We should keep the matter in perspective. I wanted a peaceful solution, and we should have trebled the number of verifiers in Kosovo. The conflict could have been prevented but, for reasons best known to itself, NATO wanted to bomb. I am deeply of the opinion that that was the wrong decision, and history will prove me right.

Mr. David Winnick: I totally disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), as I did during the conflict. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax knows, before the recess I raised on a point of order the position of the Serbs in Kosovo and said that it would be appropriate to have a statement. I totally agree that the murder of the United Nations official,


undoubtedly for no other reason than that he answered a question in what appeared to be Serbian language, is to be absolutely deplored.
More recently, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary asking what action is being taken to bring to justice not only those responsible for the murder of that Bulgarian UN employee, but others who are responsible for the murder of Serbs since the liberation of Kosovo. I have also tabled questions on the matter. Let us be perfectly clear: those of us who supported the war are anxious that the Serbs in Kosovo should be protected. Kosovo was not liberated in order to create a pure ethnic Albanian state. The international community has a responsibility to do everything possible to protect the interests of Serbians in Kosovo. That should be clearly stated from all of us on the Back Benches on both sides of the House, and put on the record.
I disagree with the way in which my two hon. Friends condemn the military action. When the Foreign Secretary made a statement on 18 January about the mass murder of ethnic Albanians, two months before the military action started, I said that there would be no change in the situation until military action was taken and I urged air strikes. Naturally, I supported such action when it was taken. In all the circumstances, it was right for the international community to have taken such action.
My two hon. Friends have spoken about the position of Serbs in Kosovo. No one has suggested that what is happening is organised or instigated by KFOR. It would be madness to advance such a view—if there is a criticism, it is that KFOR is not doing enough to protect the Serbs—but it is entirely clear, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has said, that before the liberation there was Serbian state-organised mass murder of ethnic Albanians. We could not turn away in those circumstances, saying that it was a faraway country and none of our business. Therefore, I cannot accept that the military action was not justified.
I do not for one moment question the fact that innocent people died in the air strikes. No one could argue for military action without recognising that civilians will be killed in the process, however much one wishes otherwise. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow admitted that the military action minimised civilian casualties but the fact that anyone was killed is unfortunate, of course. That, however, is the price of going to war, as in the Falklands and in the Gulf. The question is whether we were justified in taking such action. I think that, in this case, we were.
What is so depressing about what my two hon. Friends said is that, to a large extent, they advanced the view of the Milosevic clique. I do not believe that Serbians necessarily take the same view as my hon. Friends. A growing number of Serbians believe that crimes were committed in Kosovo and some, including representatives of the Orthodox Church, have admitted that paramilitaries, no doubt at the instigation of the Serbian leadership, engaged in ethnic cleansing. The crimes could not have been committed without the consent and approval of Belgrade.
Some Serbs also rightly believe that what has happened in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, which was lost to the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was caused by the way in which Milosevic took the ultra-nationalist line

10 or 11 years ago. They believe that he is responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, the wars and all the innocent casualties about which we know.

Mrs. Mahon: I recently visited Serbia twice and Kosovo once. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will confirm that we met opposition leaders—people who would not support Milosevic in a million years—and that every single one of them condemned the NATO aggression. Many Serbs admitted that crimes had been committed, but every single Serb and minority person—let us not forget that minorities have been ethnically cleansed, too—condemned NATO aggression. People did not agree with my hon. Friend that it was a good way forward.

Mr. Winnick: I do not believe that it was NATO aggression. If those people admit that such crimes were committed—I am glad that they do—how do they think that that would have ended without the liberation of Kosovo, and how could that liberation have taken place without air strikes, unless ground troops were used, a move that would certainly have escalated the war?
I understand Serbs at the receiving end of the air strikes taking one view, but the international community, of which we are very much a part, took another. The only way in which the mass murders—which the Serbs now accept as having taken place, although a few in this country refuse even now to accept it—could be stopped was by military intervention, and we decided on air strikes rather than all-out war.

Mr. John Randall: The hon. Gentleman and I will probably have to differ about the merits of the air strikes. Does he agree that it is important for the Foreign Secretary to make a full statement soon about the situation in Kosovo and Serbia? Does he feel that it is right for sanctions to continue against all the people of Serbia, including those who are opposed to Milosevic, while Milosevic and his clique will probably be the last to be affected?

Mr. Winnick: As I began by saying, in a point of order before the recess, I asked for a statement from the Foreign Secretary. We will have the opportunity to ask him questions tomorrow. With any luck, I may catch the Speaker's eye, as may the hon. Gentleman. I understand the view that Milosevic is not suffering and the ordinary Serbs are. How far sanctions can be relaxed without strengthening the regime must be the subject of on-going debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that we should not demonise the Serbs. I could not agree more. We have no quarrel with the Serbs. We will be delighted when Serbia is no longer under the rule of Milosevic and his clique. However, my hon. Friend is not necessarily the best person to have made that remark because, during the conflict, he quoted in the House some German intelligence report condemning all ethnic Albanians—not only those in the KLA—without qualification.
If the remarks that my hon. Friend quoted had been made about blacks, Asians or Jews, what uproar there would have been in the House. What he said about ethnic


Albanians being criminals—condemning a whole people without qualification—means that he is not the best person to lecture us about not demonising the Serbs.

Mr. Dalyell: I would not presume to lecture anybody on anything. On that occasion, I was quoting the exact words of the Bundeskriminalamt of the German police. It is they who used the words "ethnic Albanians". On reflection, I think that that was an unfortunate way of putting it, but the KLA, and a number of individuals, have been highly involved in the drugs trade, and what I said was an exact quotation from the German police.

Mr. Winnick: So what does that mean? If there were a similar report from somewhere or other about blacks, Asians or Jews, or if some African or Asian country produced such a report about whites, would we take those on board and simply quote them? At least my hon. Friend says that, on reflection, he feels that he might have qualified his words. The remark that he made was disgraceful—even more so as the ethnic Albanians were being subjected to atrocities at the time. My hon. Friend considered it appropriate to stand up in a free Parliament in a democratic country and quote that report in order to condemn a whole people. He should consider not only reflecting on what he said but apologising for it.

Mrs. Mahon: On the subject of drugs, NATO itself, through its parliamentary wing, said something that we shall take to our meeting in Amsterdam:
Kosovo was an important centre of drug…trafficking
linked to the KLA. It continued:
The war disrupted these flows. However, there are clear signs that mafias are reorganising, both linked to the organisation of the drug traffic in south-eastern Europe (more than to the physical traffic itself), and to the infiltration of weapons into the province through the Albanian border.
That is making—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady must be brief in an intervention.

Mrs. Mahon: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to make such a long intervention.

Mr. Winnick: It is all the same sort of anti-ethnic Albanian propaganda, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I condemn it, as I condemn anti-Serbian propaganda. Such things could be said about the United States, Turkey and many other countries. To condemn a whole people because of drug trafficking and other criminal activities is disgraceful, and illustrates the point that I made when I intervened earlier.
I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. What she said in reply to me was not very flattering but, be that as it may, we agree on 90 per cent. of domestic policies, and we shall probably agree again on Wednesday. None the less, she has allowed herself,

as has the body that describes itself as the Committee for Peace in the Balkans, to act as a mouthpiece for Milosevic to a large extent.

Mr. Randall: rose—

Mr. Winnick: I had hoped to finish my speech soon, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him.
We must bear in mind the necessity for helping people in Serbia, but I hope that we will also understand the background, and why the war that the international community undertook was entirely justified. I am proud of what we did, and in view of the horrors that were taking place in Kosovo, I would have been deeply ashamed if we had stood aside and said that what was happening was none of our business.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has, with his usual diligence and persistence, raised a timely and important issue, in which he has had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). In fairness, for the sake of balance on our Back Benches, I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is also present.
I shall try to answer all the questions that have been asked; I cannot plead lack of time tonight. However, if I cannot answer them all, I undertake to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked and write to him or to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax.
I assure both my hon. Friends that following the ending of the conflict, the whole international community—I emphasise the fact that this has happened in close partnership with the countries of the region—has moved forward quickly to address the need for reform and reconstruction in the Balkans. One of the most encouraging aspects of the events in Kosovo has been the affirmation by most countries in the region that they see their future as part of the democratic community of Europe. They are looking to a democratic, productive and prosperous future. Despite the fact that Milosevic is still there, he and all that he represents belong to the past—and that is where they should be consigned. Having worked together with our partners in the region so successfully to confront the forces of destruction—systematic murder and ethnic cleansing, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North—the international community is now rightly putting our collective energy into the process of reconstruction. The United Kingdom is playing its full part in that.
It is because the subject of the debate is the reconstruction of Yugoslavia that I, rather than one of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, am responding to it. I shall say something about that process in relation to Yugoslavia; then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow requested, I shall also say a few words about it in relation to the region more generally. As he and others have said, there is a wider and more important context to the situation in Yugoslavia.
In Kosovo the immediate task following the ending of the conflict was to provide immediate support, in particular to the hundreds of thousands of refugees who


flooded back to the province. Was it not a welcome sight when they spontaneously flooded back to their homeland? The difficult task of both addressing immediate needs and longer-term reconstruction has been entrusted by the international community to the United Nations mission in Kosovo.
In all our discussions about reconstruction in Kosovo, we should bear in mind the fact that the people of the province and the international community are now addressing not only the impact of the conflict there this year, but the effects of many years of deliberate and systematic neglect of basic services by the Serbian authorities, particularly since 1992. I hope that my hon. Friends recognise that.
Inevitably, the task of taking over responsibility for executive and legislative authority for a population of 2 million people, in the circumstances in which UNMIK was assigned that duty, has had its difficulties. However, we should be clear that, whatever the organisational difficulties have been, we can all be proud of the international commitment and solidarity expressed through the UNMIK operation.
It has generally been recognised on both sides of the House and beyond that the United Kingdom has played a major role in the response to immediate humanitarian needs, as well as to preparation for longer-term reconstruction. We have committed £98 million for humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance since the beginning of the conflict in late March. We provided immediate and practical support to the establishment of the UNMIK organisation. I doubt whether it would have got off to such an effective start had it not been for that British support.
We have taken particular care to assist with the re-establishment of the health system in Kosovo, including support for a primary health care programme designed to reach 800,000 people, and the overhaul and management of core services at the centrally important Pristina university hospital. I do not know whether my hon. Friends saw that when they visited the country, but I hope that they will agree that the work has been effective.
We have also established an infrastructure engineering unit to try to ensure that essential repair work for water, sanitation and the power supply is carried out before the coming winter, which will soon be here. The unit is also involved in essential rehabilitation of public buildings. We are assisting with maintenance and repair at Pristina airport to enable it to remain open throughout the winter.
Of course, the future of the province should and will be led by its own people. We have funded a wide range of micro-projects enabling local communities to implement their own priorities in the reconstruction of services and facilities. That has included repairs to schools and community centres, arrangements for waste disposal and the direct provision of tools and equipment. The assistance has been channelled in part through KFOR brigades, which have made an outstanding contribution to the restoration of security and the development of local communities.
We have also helped to put in place some of the aspects of democratic society that were denied to the people of Kosovo by the Serbian authorities. For example, we have assisted with the development of independent media and the establishment of legal advice centres.
The European Union is also playing a major role in reconstruction, and we contribute significantly to that. It has so far pledged a total of 137 million euro in reconstruction aid in 1999, through the Obnova programme, in addition to 378 million euro of humanitarian aid. A reserve of up to 500 million euro for further reconstruction has been provided for in the EU budget.
The next step for the international community in addressing the requirement for reconstruction is the meeting to discuss Kosovo's reconstruction requirements that will take place in Brussels on 17 November. That is a crucial meeting in relation to long-term reconstruction.

Mr. Randall: When the Minister talks of reconstruction, does he regard Kosovo as part of Yugoslavia or as a separate entity, given the title of the debate?

Mr. Foulkes: I said that I would deal first with reconstruction in Kosovo and then move on. I have much to say and we have lots of time. I have nowhere else to go, although I do not know about the hon. Gentleman.
The assessment of need is being prepared jointly by the EU and the World Bank and that co-operation is vital. The meeting on 17 November will enable us to plan ahead in a co-ordinated way. We are also making arrangements to put in place our bilateral programme of support for reconstruction and development in Kosovo. Officials from my Department will be visiting Kosovo in early November for discussions on the possible content of a long-term programme of support. We shall assess the humanitarian assistance that we are presently giving, and maintaining it where necessary. Then we intend to manage a smooth transition from activities addressed to immediate needs to support for the process of transition to pluralist democracy and a prosperous market economy, as we are doing in other countries of the region where reformist policies are in place.
No one has raised the issue of Montenegro, but I should mention that we are also watching closely developments there. We have a small programme of bilateral activities there at present, and we have committed £650,000 of bilateral, humanitarian relief to Montenegro. The EU has pledged 13 million euro of new economic support for Montenegro. Britain took the lead in getting agreement in the EU for exemption of Montenegro from the current oil embargo and flight ban on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Mrs. Mahon: Is the money going into Montenegro and Macedonia a gift or a loan?

Mr. Foulkes: All the money that I have mentioned is in the form of grants. My Department is principally involved in granting money to our partner countries. We also strongly welcome the participation of Montenegro as a guest of the chair in meetings of the stability pact. It has been enormously encouraging to see the active participation of colleagues from Montenegro in the meetings of the stability pact, and their evident wish to associate themselves with the community of democratic European nations.

Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that there would be "severe


consequences" if Serbia in any way tampers with Montenegrin autonomy. The west pretends to want to see former Yugoslavia held together, but not under the leadership of Milosevic. However, the west's every action, from economic sanctions to indictments for war crimes, entrenches Milosevic further. Are there any contingency plans being considered, even to the deploying of troops, to prevent Milosevic from entertaining any ideas of attacking Montenegro? I realise that that is a delicate matter.

Mr. Foulkes: It may be delicate, but it is also an issue for which I do not have direct responsibility. That question might be more appropriately addressed to one of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I do not disagree with the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as quoted by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the Minister moves on to the issue of Serbia, can he tell us about the situation of the refugees who were displaced by the conflict into Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania? How many have been able to return to their homes and what assessment has been made of that situation, the need for reconstruction and the funds required?

Mr. Foulkes: I will return to the question of refugees later, but if I do not touch specifically on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I shall write to him.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to try my hon. Friend's patience, but before he leaves the subject of Kosovo perhaps he can tell us whether it is true that the Irish Guards are the only people who do night patrol. If he cannot answer that question, perhaps he could find out and write to me.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is not trying my patience, because I have infinite patience and almost infinite time to deal with all these points. However, as he knows, I do not have direct responsibility for the Irish Guards, which is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. If he wishes to address that question to the Ministry, I am sure that he will get a sensible answer.
The challenge of reconstruction is, of course, greatest in Serbia. The British Government, and the international community, are as strongly committed to the transition of Serbia and the prosperity of its people as we are to other countries of the region with which we are working so closely and productively. We have nothing against the people of Serbia. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said, we have no vendetta against the people of Serbia, many of whom have suffered under the leadership of Milosevic as much as anyone. It is the misfortune of the people of Serbia to be governed by a corrupt and undemocratic regime led by an indicted war criminal.
We are ready to give our support to the process of reform and reconstruction in Serbia as soon as there is a Government there who respect and implement the principles of democracy on which reform and reconstruction are based. As soon as Serbia is democratically governed and complies with its international obligations, it will immediately be able to

participate in the stability pact and to benefit from bilateral and multilateral support available from the international community. The help that the people of Serbia need is ready to be provided if those conditions are met, but that is in the hands of the people of Serbia.

Mrs. Mahon: I raised earlier the double standard in the attitudes of the west, and the EU and the OSCE in particular, to Turkey, which has elected representatives in prison, an appalling human rights record and where up to 30,000 Kurds have been killed. What is my hon. Friend's response to the comparison of the attitudes to Turkey and Yugoslavia?

Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that it is helpful to make such comparisons. We could go around the world making comparisons, but we need to take each case on its merits. We need to make a judgment on the circumstances and all the information that we have. As my hon. Friend will know, I strongly opposed armed intervention in the Falklands, and that stance was not too popular at the time.

Mr. Winnick: I supported intervention.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend made a different judgment in the case of the Falklands, and rightly.
Several hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who is no longer in his place—raised the crucial issue of sanctions. The goal of the oil embargo, the flight bans and the visa regime is to promote democratic change in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, by as far as possible targeting Milosevic's regime.
On sanctions, I emphasise that, although it is crucial to keep up pressure on Milosevic and his regime, our argument is not with the Serbian people. Our present judgment is that the sanctions in force will not cause a humanitarian crisis in Serbia, although we are monitoring the situation closely. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that we remain ready to provide targeted humanitarian assistance, should it be required.
Forty thousand tonnes of oil have already been imported under the humanitarian exemptions provided in the terms of the western oil embargo. I say specifically to my hon. Friends that, if need be, further exemptions can be agreed within a week. Indeed, the oil embargo is incomplete. If Milosevic so chooses, he is free to purchase oil from Russia, Bulgaria and the Ukraine, so the opportunity to bring help to his people is in his own hands.

Mr. David Heath: I am very interested in what the Minister is saying. Am I right in thinking that, as I heard a couple of weeks ago, it is the assessment of the United Nations Commission for Europe—a body in which I do not always have a great deal of confidence—that there is a need for a change in that sanctions regime, precisely to replace the generating capacity that was destroyed during the war and avoid difficulties of a humanitarian nature this winter?

Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Balkans Task Force?

Mr. Heath: No; the UN Commission for Europe.

Mr. Foulkes: I believe that the same point was dealt with by that report. However, if the close monitoring that is


taking place shows that further exemptions are needed, they can be agreed rapidly—within a week. We shall take that into account. The reports that we receive—I am not immediately aware of the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions—certainly help us to make up our mind about that.
On refugees in Serbia—a subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—the precise figures are unknown. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has permission from the Serb authorities for a re-registration exercise to reassess the numbers. The current estimate is about 700,000. The UN office for co-ordinating humanitarian affairs, based in Belgrade, says that collective centres in Serbia are receiving energy supplies, including from non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross; and UNICEF, the Red Cross, the European Community Humanitarian Office and Focus—a Swiss, Russian and Czech agency—have support programmes focused on schools and hospitals. Natural gas imports into Serbia from Russia via Hungary are continuing. That assistance is available to help to meet the immediate humanitarian needs of people in Serbia.

Audrey Wise: Would my hon. Friend care to quantify the help that he just mentioned?

Mr. Foulkes: Not immediately, but I could reply in more detail to my hon. Friend in relation to that. I do not believe that she was in the Chamber when the question to which I am replying was asked, in an intervention. If I had been given greater notice, I would have tried to reply to that point in more detail, but I shall try to do so later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow expressed particular interest in the environmental impact of the Kosovo conflict, as he has done several times in the House. As he said, the joint United Nations Environment Programme-United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Balkans task force—under the chairmanship of Dr. Haavisto, an eminent Finn—was set up in May to investigate the impact of the conflict on the environment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and on human settlements. That task force looked in particular at the environmental consequences of air strikes for industrial sites; the impact of the conflict on the Danube; the impact on biodiversity; the consequences for human settlements and the environment; and the use of depleted uranium weapons.
It is a testimony to our concern about the issue that that task force was set up and was given that remit. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that he was concerned that the conflict may have resulted in an environmental catastrophe. The BTF's key conclusions were that the Kosovo conflict had not caused an environmental catastrophe in the Balkans region, but that pollution at some sites was serious and did, indeed, pose a threat to human health.
Environmental contamination as a result of the conflict was identified at four hot-spot sites. However, the BTF also said that part of the contamination identified at some sites was obviously due to poor environmental management pre-dating the Kosovo conflict; that, in particular, there was a long-term deficiency in the treatment and storage of hazardous waste; and that immediate attention to environmental issues was necessary, regardless of the cause. Concern about that pre-existing long-term deficiency had previously been expressed by some other states in the region.

Mr. Dalyell: I quote Dr. Haavisto:
It is up to the international community to discuss and decide whether the rules of modern warfare are up to date when looking at all the risks to human health and to the environment".
Do the Government in general accept Dr. Haavisto's request in that respect?

Mr. Foulkes: Obviously, the environmental considerations must be taken into account, with a range of other things, but as I said, Dr. Haavisto's—and the task force's—principal conclusion was not that the conflict had caused an environmental catastrophe.
Inevitably, especially where industrial sites are targeted in the course of conflicts, there is likely to be environmental impact. However, it is relevant to bear in mind the fact that, in all aspects of public administration and service delivery, Kosovo has suffered from extensive and deliberate neglect by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, especially since 1992. That point is made in the BTF report.
There has also been particular concern about the possibility of pollution of the Danube, including contamination of drinking water and the ingestion of toxins by fish. The BTF concluded that there was no evidence of an ecological catastrophe for the Danube as a result of air strikes, although there were some serious hot spots where contamination by air strikes had occurred. That was against the background of long-term chronic pollution.

Mr. Dalyell: I quote page 53 of the report by Professor Stephan and Dr. Strobel:
It is of urgent necessity to analyse sediments and bank filtrates in case they are to be used in the production of drinking water. As fishing is practised in the Danube and in the canals, the fish should regularly be checked for mercury and PCB content so that diseases (e. g. Minimata disease…) can be prevented.
Is action being taken on that?

Mr. Foulkes: We are certainly taking account of that; that is why Dr. Haavisto's task force was set up. However, I wish that my hon. Friend would also take account of the point that I was making when he was preparing to make that intervention—that many of the problems pre-date the conflict and are caused by poor environmental management before it.
I shall also answer my hon. Friend's previous question, in relation to the blocking of the Danube as a result of the bombing of bridges during the conflict. On 11 October, the General Affairs Council of the European Union emphasised the EU's readiness to support the Danube Commission and the countries of the region in addressing that issue, given the importance of the Danube to regional economies. We know how important that river is. I have sailed down it myself; I know how crucial it is to regional economies. However, the Serbian authorities are refusing to clear the debris until the cost is paid by the NATO countries.

Mr. Dalyell: Exactly.

Mr. Foulkes: Let me finish. However, the true motives of the Serbian authorities are revealed by the fact that they have declined offers from Russia and from the city of Dortmund to help with bridge building and the clearance of the river. If they were genuinely concerned about the


immediate effects, including the effect of icing up, why have they not accepted the offers from Russia and from Dortmund to do that clearing up?
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax raised the question of the Kosovo protection force. That force explicitly preserves 10 per cent. of its places for non-Albanian minorities. Not all of them have been taken up, but that allocation is fundamental to the concept of the force.
The Kosovo protection force is not a military organisation. KFOR has reported that the KLA was successfully demilitarised. We should give some credit to positive steps of that kind.

Mrs. Mahon: How does my hon. Friend explain the shootings and the continued ethnic cleansing? How does he explain the fact that the bishop and the priest to whom I referred earlier have pulled out? The Kosovo protection force is the KLA by another name.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend puts two and two together and makes five. She cannot attribute everything that she has described to the Kosovo protection force—unless she has some information to which we are not privy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised the matter of our obligations to Bulgaria and Romania. We are working closely with those countries. I visited Bulgaria recently and discussed our programme there, and I hope to visit Romania. We are producing strategies with both those countries, and copies are available in the Library. We have very good relationships with Bulgaria and Romania, and both are taking part in the stability pact meetings. It is important for all hon. Members to remember that, as I said earlier, those countries in the region supported the NATO operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also asked about chemical factories. The task force looked into that matter, and concluded that, although there were no catastrophic effects as a result of the operation, there was evidence of a background of chronic problems owing to long-term environmental mismanagement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also raised the matter of the rebuilding of the motor industry. As I said earlier, we understand that need, but there can be no reconstruction activity until a democratic Government is in place. That democratic Government must comply with the international standards, including the ICTY in the Hague.

Mr. Randall: Would the Minister consider the Government of Croatia to be democratic? Would sanctions be lifted if there were a Government in Serbia similar to the one in Croatia?

Mr. Foulkes: It is important to stick to the topic in hand. Various hon. Members have tried to make a range of comparisons: following them up would have taken us all around the world. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that it is important to stick by our principles, and the principles that I have enunciated apply universally.

Mr. Dalyell: It is easy to be optimistic about Pancevo, but the report on mercury that I quoted earlier states:
The bombings in Pancevo and the destruction of the PVC manufacturing plant also caused the release of mercury. Part of the mercury may have evaporated due to the heat, part of it may have

been transformed into mercury compounds through the simultaneous presence of heat and chlorine and through the combustion products of the rocket fuels, and may have migrated in the smoke cloud in the form of fumes. dust, or soot. Some of the mercury must also have been washed into the Pancevo canal by the water used for fire extinguishing. Mercury findings in the soil and the concentrations at lower levels confirm this.
Mercury vapour and fog"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that: his intervention is far too long.

Mr. Foulkes: With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, it seems to me that as soon as I answer systematically and point by point one of the matters that he has raised in his opening speech and in interventions, he raises something entirely new. Given that this Adjournment debate could go on until 10.30 pm, my hon. Friend could have spoken at much greater length in his initial presentation. I should then have had the opportunity to consider such matters carefully and to reply to them—just as I am trying to reply to the various points that have been raised. Again with respect, to intervene constantly with totally new points just because I have managed to answer an earlier question is not a proper way for my hon. Friend to conduct the debate.
I now turn to another point, raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Walsall, North—the murder of the UN official. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that his information is absolutely correct. I join him, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, in deploring that murder. I strongly praise the work being done by the United Nations. I hope that we are agreed on that matter at least.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax raised the question of casualties incurred during the course of the NATO operation. I do not quarrel with what she said, but she should also bear in mind the fact that, in the year preceding the NATO operations, 2,000 Kosovans were killed, 400,000 were internally displaced and 90,000 were displaced outside Kosovo. In addition, a quarter of all EU asylum applications in 1998 were from Kosovo Albanians. Those figures come from the UNHCR; they testify to what was happening, and demonstrate why we had to take the action that we took.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax also asked about the report stating that Serbs had been attacked by Albanians. I can tell her that a column of Serbians was escorted by KFOR troops, and that a small group of Serbians was also tacked on behind. Somewhere, that smaller group took a wrong turn and ended up in a Kosovo Albanian village. They were set upon by the villagers, who thought that they were trying to return to Pec. The Serbs were eventually rescued by Italian troops—doing the job that they are there to do—and have now reached Montenegro. There were no casualties, and the main group under the KFOR escort also arrived safely.

Mrs. Mahon: I am sure that we are all pleased about that outcome. In September, KFOR stated that nearly 400 Serbs and members of other minorities had been killed, and that 500 had been abducted and were still missing. Will my hon. Friend comment on those figures?

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—that we deplore any


killing or torture of Serbs, or any attacks on them, just as we would deplore any killing, torture or attack suffered by Kosovans. Our attitude to such matters does not discriminate according to nationality.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax and for Walsall, North, but I am sure that they will welcome the fact that there are now encouraging signs that the people of Serbia recognise the destructive nature of the current regime. For example, we welcome the meeting of Serbian mayors that took place on 7 October in Szeged in Hungary. That was a clear demonstration that democratic principles are alive in Serbia, despite the malevolent attitudes of the Milosevic government. Those principles need to be encouraged.
The European Union's General Affairs Council, at its meeting on 11 October, made clear the position of the European Union concerning Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The council declared that, as soon as the Governments of Serbia and the FRY are under the political control of democratic forces and there is full co-operation with the international criminal tribunal of the former Yugoslavia, the EU and its member states will lift sanctions and launch an EU reconstruction programme. That is a positive incentive for all the people of Serbia.
The meeting of those conditions would also enable the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to negotiate a stabilisation and association agreement with the EU, in line with the other western Balkan countries. The FRY would also be able to join the stability pact and negotiate the conditions necessary to join the Council of Europe. Britain is ready to play an active role, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in reconstruction and reform in Serbia and the FRY, as soon as political conditions in Serbia allow.
In conclusion, I want to emphasise that our commitment, and that of the international community, to reconstruction is a commitment to the region as a whole. The European Union has announced its intention to negotiate stabilisation and association agreements to assist with the acceleration of economic growth in countries of the region. We want them to be democratic and prosperous. Negotiations are under way with some countries. The international community has also expressed its commitment to reform throughout the region through the creation of the stability pact, which was established by Heads of Government, including the Prime Minister, at Sarajevo on 30 July.
The stability pact has moved on quickly. First meetings have been held of its three working tables on economic reconstruction, security, and democratisation and human rights. Each working table has agreed a programme of work to be carried out before its next meetings, early next year.
The most encouraging aspect of the stability pact, and its essential strength, is that it is not a donor consortium but a partnership between the countries of the region and the international community. It is enormously encouraging to have seen the part that the countries of the region have played in stability pact discussions. Indeed, the next meetings of the working tables will be hosted by countries in the region—Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Hungary. The meetings of the stability pact have agreed and emphasised that participation is open to Serbia as soon as it meets the necessary conditions.
The United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of the stability pact as a means of accelerating the path to pluralist democracy and flourishing market economies in

the region. We have, jointly with the United States, presented a compact for reform, investment, integrity and growth. The compact sets out the mix of conditions required in the countries of the region to promote investment and growth of the private sector as the basis for the creation of wealth and prosperity. We are now actively involved in developing a plan of action to take forward the compact and to assist the countries of the region in implementing it.
We have also taken the lead of a task group established to consider the promotion of the principles of free and independent media throughout the region. Discussion is taking place on draft principles prepared by Britain.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow secured this debate. It is, of course, his right to pursue this again and again, diligently and persistently. This is a democratic country—I wonder whether he would have the same kind of freedoms in Serbia.
I went to Poland last week and visited the concentration camps around Lublin. Some people would now have us believe that no genocide took place there either. I saw the evidence of genocide. Similarly, we know of the evidence of genocide in Kosovo.
It always surprises me that some of my hon. Friends believe the propaganda of the dictator Milosevic rather than believing me and my ministerial colleagues. Milosevic is the villain of the piece. He has systematically attacked the people of Kosovo and is responsible for the continuing suffering of his own people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development earlier in the debate. My right hon. Friend and I have worked for years—and will continue to do so—to help the poorest of the world's poor. We would not unnecessarily do anything to hurt the poor people of Serbia. That is why I hope that the points that I have made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will strike a resonance on both sides of the House.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the sitting until a Message was received from the Lords relating to the Greater London Authority Bill, pursuant to Order [29 October.]

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

A Message was brought from the Lords, as follows:
The Lords have agreed to the Greater London Authority Bill, with amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill to be considered tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 158].

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McAvoy.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.